Hampstead ponds

What a shame. Sex Matters have published the following statement:

"Sex Matters is disappointed that our application for permission for a judicial review of the City of London’s decision to allow men into the women’s bathing pond, and vice versa, has been refused.

This decision was solely on procedural grounds. The High Court did NOT find that the City of London Corporation’s self-ID policy was lawful.

The hearing concerned whether to allow a challenge to the City of London’s decision to keep its policy in place pending the results of a consultation and review. The court considered the decision to put up new posters departing from the original policy, and also, alternatively, whether the old policy could be challenged now.

It did not consider whether the policy itself was lawful. That has not been considered in any court.

Sex Matters CEO Maya Forstater said:

“The fight for women’s safety, privacy and dignity in single-sex spaces will continue. Just because this particular claim was ruled out on procedural grounds does not give any service provider the green light to allow trans-identifying males into female facilities.

“The City’s policy and its unwillingness to defend the lawfulness of that policy in court simply pushes the risk of harassment and the cost and difficulty of taking legal cases onto individual women and members of staff. This is deeply unjust.”

The City of London first made the decision to allow men into the women’s ponds and the women’s communal changing rooms and showers in 2017.

The High Court accepted the City of London’s argument that this decision was “out of time” for a legal challenge.

It decided that because a consultation was under way, the proper time to take a challenge would be after that consultation had been used to inform a new policy. It accepted the City of London’s argument that it had not yet reached a new decision about whether to change the policy to exclude men from these facilities or to continue to allow them in.

It also found that it is open to individuals who experience discrimination and harassment because of the current policy to bring discrimination claims in the county court.

Sex Matters is considering its legal options. We thank everyone who contributed to the case, both by donating and by sharing their stories in witness statements of what it means in practice when men are allowed into women’s showers and changing rooms."

Just seen this. HC dismissed the challenge. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/29/hampstead-heath-ladies-pond-ruling/

It was the Man Friday protests, probably in about 2018 or 2019.

Many of them were Mumsnetters I think

I thought a group of women tried, to make a point, but they were turned away.

It may have been this event, I may be wrong but think I remember there was a quieter attempt, too.

An oldie, but goodie.

Maybe this consultation is just an anger sponge. They still have to follow the law regardless of what people write in it.

There are currently nearly 30,000 responses. I suspect that there has been a huge TRA mobilization to flood the consultation with "trans-inclusive" answers.

And, let's be honest, a woman is not going to be a sexual and/or dangerous threat to a man.

But yes. This is a belief system where feelings create facts that vary and appear and disappear, and history is rewritten, all of it to serve the current agenda in hand. It tends to derail rather hard when it encounters a court room where reality and facts are stable, objective things.

No, “trans men” do not use the men’s pond so far. They are reinventing history and saying their policy has thus far been different to what it has in reality

Do Transmen use the men’s pond?

Not sure.

But the reality is that women (including Transmen) have not weaponised their bodies and attitudes against men in the way men (as a clad, not as all individuals) have against women.

Done!

I have filled this in.

Opening the mixed pond in winter would achieve this.

Thank you OP and apologies to you all for forgetting to mention this in my response to the consultation.

When I have suggested women only sessions at some of the 'wild saunas' that have started in recent years (for those that don't have them already), I have pointed out the faiths where sharing a sauna without men is required. Same applies to the open air ponds.

I heard something about this on the radio recently and the whole mess really saddens me. I haven’t actually swam in the ponds for many years although I did visit recently and thought how much more ‘developed’ they looked compared to when I was last there.

Call me a simpleton but is there some reason why it can’t just be a pond for those with born with a vagina, a pond for those born with a penis and a pond for everyone regardless of what they were born with and how they identify now? Isn’t that the whole basis of having 3 ponds at the very simplest level?

If you let males into the female pond it is no longer the female pond it's a mixed sex pond, so women have no pond of their own and men do. There are 2 mixed sex ponds and 1 male only pond.

No, you're right. Men can use any pond they wish and feel most comfortable in, and which truly expresses their inner self, soothes trauma, etc etc.

Women can fit in around men and provide men with the experience of women, or they can fuck off and go without access at all.

And this is not, in lala land, batshit sexism and male supremacism.

My understanding is that women are not allowed in the male pond but can use mixed or female ponds . Men can use male and mixed sex ponds but if they say they are women they can use the female pond . Or have I misunderstood?

Oh good LORD that lot can talk some bollocks.

Women wanting space away from men is not 'right wing'. That's like saying people not wanting to stick their hand in a mincer is 'right wing'. Just fuck off with that, these nut jobs are forcing sanity to be framed as the premise of the right. On their heads be that, they'll be sorry. And so will the bloody left if they continue to sit like muppets and allow it.

Women not pandering to men and being unwilling to undress around men is not 'hate' and is not 'bigoted'. Refusing to enable men in their fantasies is not 'hate' or 'bigotry' either. Those men can go and be women to their hearts content in the mixed sex space, they do not need to destroy the women's only space at all. The bigotry is all on the activist side who can't permit women rights or beliefs or cultural needs or anything else that involves not indulging and undressing for men on demand. Fuck off with that too.

'Inclusive..' Oh don't make me laugh.

The first job of a women's space is to be inclusive of all women. All of them. THe traumatised ones, the ones from religions you don't agree with , the ones with cultures that aren't yours, ALL WOMEN. And no women are men. Men pushing women out to play their immersive fiction games is ANYTHING but 'inclusive'.

You going to have explain the maths on that one. 🤔

So men now have 3 ponds but women only have 2?

Are they trying to drum up more crowdfunding, if this is an example of the narrative the opposition have been hoodwinked into believing, it's no wonder they're so rapid at the mouth,

'transphobic pressure group....', 'tiny minority of bigot's....' 'right wing....', they haven't missed a dog whistle and there's literally no truth to any of it.

from GLP just now

"Hampstead ponds are the latest front in the rightwing backlash against trans people.

Trans women have been living their lives and swimming in the women’s pond for years. But the transphobic pressure group, Sex Matters, have threatened the City of London Corporation with legal action.

We’re standing with trans people against this hate and we need you to stand with us.

Once again, a tiny minority of extremists are stirring up hate. Once again, a tiny minority of bigots are threatening trans people’s lives.

We’re not having it. We will not sit quiet and watch them push trans people out of spaces where they’ve always belonged.

The far right is raising its voice all across the world. We need to stand together to show that tolerance and inclusion are stronger than hate. Are you with us?
"

🙄

Thank you, filled it in, pointed out they have to follow the law and also that this consultation is pointless because they're not allowed to do most of these options so why even ask.

Have filled it in. Apart from quoting Schedule 3, I laid into them about antisemitism. Maybe they'll take more notice of that than just the pesky women complaining.