Hampstead Heath Ladies' Pond faces legal action

[IwantToRetire]

Hampstead Heath Ladies’ Pond is facing legal action for allegedly failing to ban transgender women despite the landmark Supreme Court gender ruling.

The famed women-only bathing spot has maintained its trans-inclusive policy pending a ‘review’ in spite of the UK’s highest court ruling in April that trans women are not legally female.

Women’s rights campaigners sent a legal letter to the City of London Corporation, which manages the ponds, last week warning they intend to bring a legal challenge unless the policy is revoked with 'immediate effect’.

The legal letter, seen by the Mail, says that the current policy ‘violates the dignity of women using the Ladies’ Pond’ and that the Corporation is ‘operating it unlawfully by allowing trans identifying males to access it’.

From https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14851251/Hampstead-Heath-Ladies-Pond-legal-action-ban-trans-women-Supreme-Court.html

Different version of same story https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/26/hampstead-ladies-pond-swimmers-accuse-trans-women-spying/ and at https://archive.is/fZ31q

Well done those wims!

Interesting, and an excellent choice of target as there's already a mixed sex third space.

I'll be really interested to see how exactly they have framed it, if that comes out. Discrimination against women by violating their dignity? Discrimination against religious groups who can't use it as it's mixed sex? Discrimination against men as it's not a single sex space in there terms of the EA so the single sex exemption can't be used?

Brilliant! The swimming ponds have been an egregious example of sex discrimination, with men permitted to use all three and many women excluded completely.

Well done, i hope it goes well

It’s been such a clear example of how compromise won’t be countenanced. The mixed sex pond is the perfect third space but its not enough - for some men, the attraction is in violating women’s spaces

Excellent news. I wonder if they need any gardening done?

Excellent. Couldn't happen to a better example of egregious misogyny.

Fantastic. I’m still waiting for a response from my MP (Tulip Sidiq) about this

I think a certain somebody is providing funding to sex matters as they are issuing letters before action all over the place.

excellent.

The violating dignity bit is unlawful harassment because of a protected characteristic (sex).

This is defined as unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating your dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Preventing unlawful harassment is the main legitimate aim of most uses of the SSE when you think about it.

Good. I hope they are successful in suing those responsible. There’s a mixed pond, but oh no, cross-dressing men just have to claim their lady status.

Good.

Appropriate gardening available if required. I'm thinking maybe some waterlilies...

The fact that it says the women’s pond does it by itself and there is a third space for the Erm other people, so we are all watching this non compliance.

which s not going to go well.

thank goodness for Helen maya fws and a few more besides.

There is a mixed pond so there was never any need for them to force this on women. I've been there and the women walk around naked. No place for a naked man.

I think this is the update from SM, isn't it?

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/kenwood-ladies-pond-letter-before-action/

..and here is the letter before claim:
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Letter-Before-Claim-17-June-2025-Ladies-Pond.pdf

Excellent. I hope they win hand over fist and happy to offer carrots 🥕 . This pond has been an egregious example of women being sidelined when there is ample provision for TW. Well done Sex Matters 👏

Agree - any word of a garden being planted, a tip off would be welcome.

Let's not forget they had a consultation which they then refused to publish responses and totally ignored all the people saying 'no'

Good. I blame the Drs and Psychiatrists and whoever else that told men they could actually be women if they wanted to be. Sick of this crap and the way we have been made to feel for thinking the truth or heaven forbid, speaking the truth. Enough now.

Well done!

There is clearly already a 3rd space.

Women were thrown out of the Men's, so it clearly doesnt work both ways.

Someone in charge in the council must be trans allied.

I've never seen anything as blatantly discriminatory as this, and against SC clarification aswell.

It concerns me slightly that they are relying on deception: the WI and GG are fairly open about admitting trans identifying males so could argue "well we are ok because we are openly inclusive [of men]".

Good news indeed. It should never have had to come to this.

I think this could be a very important test case about whether mixed-sex single-gender services are legal; it has all the appropriate elements. On the one hand it would be great if the CoLC changed their policy right away, but on the other hand it would be very helpful to have it thrashed out in court.