Of course trans women should be barred from the Ladies’ Pond
For a century, the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath has been a serene swimming space and cherished refuge for women and girls. Here, women thrive, finding acceptance and solace in the tranquil surroundings. Women’s-only spaces like the Ladies’ Pond offer a community free from judgement and free from threat. They are so wonderful because they offer a community free from men.
But in 2017, the City of London (CoL) announced that transwomen would be allowed into the Ladies’ Pond and changing spaces. Women objected, some self-excluded, and activists stormed the Men’s Pond, prompting embarrassment and anger. Despite identifying as men, they were peacefully removed and a police officer explained, “You can’t enter a facility for the opposite sex.”
Yet over at the Ladies’ Pond, women were not being afforded the same rights as men to privacy, dignity and safety. Their embarrassment and anger at male intrusion was ignored.
The Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association (KLPA) have staunchly supported the CoL, despite acknowledging the Ladies’ Pond is a haven for women and the vulnerable among them, like survivors of sexual violence, religious women and lesbians.
Their website claims that, in alignment with the Equality Act 2010, the Ladies’ Pond, while accepting transwomen, is “a women-only space that is NOT open to men.” But in April this year, the fabulous For Women Scotland won a unanimous U.K. Supreme Court ruling that “sex,” “man” and “woman” in this Act refer to biological sex, rendering this KLPA statement nonsensical.
The CoL, unmoved, plans to retain its policy to permit some males into the Ladies’ Pond while they consider the ruling. It is unclear how much consideration is required. Providers can no longer promise “women-only” spaces that include some males. Such spaces should be clearly described as mixed-sex. And including some but not all males in a mixed-sex space risks legal issues.
Third and mixed-sex spaces are being recommended and, post-ruling, some providers may need time to adjust facilities to meet legal duties. However, the CoL, managing the Men’s and a mixed-sex pond, is well-positioned to simply bar transwomen from the Ladies’ Pond, without leaving them pond-less.
Venice Allen, a frequent Pond user and ex-KLPA member expelled for opposing male access, has campaigned tirelessly to restore the Ladies’ Pond as a female-only status. Despite CoL’s intransigence, she vows, “It shall be ours again one day.”
Emma Hilton is a Biologist at the University of Manchester and a Trustee of Sex Matters
A ban would go against the spirit of the ponds
Four years ago, when I lived on the Gospel Oak side of Hampstead Heath, I used to swim in the Ladies' Pond once a week. I saw plenty of things during my time at the ponds: boobs, genitals, famous people, ducks, body hair, people with one boob, people with no boobs, the odd crayfish, more ducks. What I never saw, once, was someone making other people uncomfortable due to their perceived gender.
The ponds are a distinctly peaceful, unjudgmental and welcoming place. There are unwritten rules and codes of conduct that mean everyone behaves as they should, to protect the sanctity of the ponds. If they didn’t, I’m sure they’d be ejected by the brilliant-yet-firm lifeguards who police the ponds within a moment’s notice.
This is why the debate over trans women’s rights to attend the ladies' pond is so preposterous. It’s been reignited by the recent Supreme Court ruling that defined a woman as someone who was assigned female at birth. Trans women have been allowed to swim at the Hampstead Ladies’ Pond under formal guidance that was approved by the local swimmers’ association since 2019. But now, spurred on by the Supreme Court ruling, certain swimmers at the ponds are preparing for an “occupation” to try and get trans women banned from the Ladies’ Pond.
Not only does this go against the entire spirit of the ponds, which have long been a queer-friendly, accepting space for all people of all bodies, but they also go against the spirit of London. This is a city of acceptance, of embracing people’s differences, of pride.
And it’s also near impossible to enforce. Any proposed “rule” on which women should be allowed in will be murkier than the ponds themselves. Unless there is a security guard checking people’s genitals at the gate, good luck. How else are they going to do it?
If it’s based on people’s outwards appearance, that risks isolating those who don’t look “feminine” enough, even if they are biologically women. It risks discrimination against butch lesbians, or masculine-presenting women, or those who have undergone mastectomies.
Every woman has the potential of being hurt by this kind of rule, whereas no women have been hurt by a “fake trans woman” infiltrating the ponds to sexually assault them, from what I’m aware of.
Actually, now I remember someone making other people uncomfortable when I used to swim at the ponds: it was the women who spoke loudly against trans rights while other swimmers were simply trying to enjoy their laps. The same women who would have boasted proudly about the inclusive, body-positive nature of the ponds, how queer-friendly they are, how safe. There is no threat to the ponds other than these attitudes disrupting their good-hearted nature. So stop trying to create one.
Maddy Mussen is a London Standard columnist
