Consultation on future access to the Hampstead Heath Bathing Ponds - Closes 25 November 2025

[IwantToRetire]

The City of London Corporation has launched a public consultation to help inform future access arrangements at Hampstead Heath’s Bathing Ponds.

The consultation invites feedback from pond users, the local community, and stakeholders on how the Kenwood Ladies’, and Highgate Men’s ponds should operate in the future.

The consultation is open until 12:00 on Tuesday 25 November 2025.

https://hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds.commonplace.is/

Opened today and I found out via an Irish newspaper!

I know there is an existing thread about legal challenge but thought it good to have the news of the consultation being open as a thread title.

I’m glad to see so many people have responded. Even if you think it’s a fool’s exercise, I think it’s important we register our voices.

They can try to discredit opinions they don’t like as much as they want but they can’t avoid their legal obligations.

If they make all three ponds mixed sex the TRAs will be bloody furious. They don’t want to swim with women in mixed facilities, they want to be able to demand access to women’s single-sex spaces. We’ve seen this time and again.

I doubt they’ll discredit opinions again - especially in light of recent events. They could be asked to justify that in court and they know they’ll have no response.

As many women as possible need to fill it in - and you don’t need to live in London to do so. If you feel able to do so, then please do.

On a separate note, it’s hilarious that so many of us independent of each other told them to shove their stupid gender question up their arse (I’m paraphrasing somewhat) 😂

I’ve filled it in. Yes, it’s the same question asked in various guises……….

A reasonable compromise might be to make them strictly single sex but then have a regular thing like a 'trans Tuesday' or whatever whereby bathers can identify into whichever pond they like.

Though I doubt the TIM's would go for that, real women would avoid the Tuesdays, leaving it initially a pure sausage feast and very quickly attended by no-one, once the fun of being around women had been taken away from the TIM's.

I went heavy on religiously observant Jewish and Muslim women currently having nowhere to swim, and how that's a breach of the EA2010.

I filled it out briefly, saying that their ‘trans-inclusive’ options were discriminatory and referred them to the Supreme Court judgement and the Sex Matters judicial review.

Agree with pp that they are consulting on whether or not to comply with the law.

Also done. I asked about whether they had done an Equality Impact Assessment on the impact of the PC of race and religion as well as sex. I also pointed out that the consultation was not a good use of taxpayers money when you can’t use a consultation to avoid legal obligations. I also emphasised that there was adequate provision for trans through the mixed sex pond.

Not sure if it will make any difference but at least they can’t pretend nobody objected.

I filled it in and now I'm worried because it implies it's public. Will my email address be visible? I might lose my job if it's seen.

It’s public only in as much as they are asking the public.The results will be aggregated and summarised.

I said I disagreed less (than 'strongly') with the idea of having specific trans-inclusive times than with their other 'options' - because at least anyone who wanted a genuinely single-sex space could choose to avoid the pond during those times - but with the proviso that these advertised times would only take place occasionally (eg for a few hours once a month) and not become the default/ majority of the time. Weekly would be too often in my view!

The Guardian ran the story today: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/04/hampstead-heath-swimming-ponds-considering-limiting-transgender-users-access

I have included in my response several comments about what a waste of money the consultation is as only one option is legal.......

I think the consultation is about whether to continue having single sex spaces at all?

That would be devastating. It's better to have an occasional, well-meaning trans person than open mixed sex, because the entire point of the Ladies' and Men's ponds is the single sex space. It's not about swimming as a sport or leisure activity (anyone can go to swimming pools for that) or for the outdoor experience (we have the mixed ponds for that), but for the unique, special community where we can feel safe and free.

What, this is why we can't have nice things? Because if trans identifying men can't swim in a space free from (other men), neither can women?

Interestingly. I just replied for my partner and myself and the options were different for wcag of us!!

And what if they are at work in those times??

I'm just saying I'd rather an occasional trans person who has been living as whatever they think is the opposite gender turns up to what should be a single sex space, than that the single sex space is removed altogether.

However, I don't believe there should be any option other than the single sex spaces reverting to being single sex, as they were originally intended to remain.

Would that include someone like Sarah Jane Baker?

The moment someone of the opposite sex turns up in a single sex space it is by definition no longer single but mixed sex, that's the point!

I don't disagree, but I don't think there is any such thing as a well meaning trans person who would choose to use the single sex spaces when a perfectly good mixed sex alternative is available.

How were they different?

I'm interested that they are presenting these two options as different:

• That they should continue to be trans-inclusive spaces as currently operated - Under this option the Highgate Men’s Pond would be accessible to all biological men and trans men and the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond would be accessible to all biological women and trans women as at present.

• That they should be trans-inclusive spaces based on how people have decided to live their lives - Under this option the Highgate Men’s Pond would only be accessible to people who have decided to live their lives as men (including trans men but excluding trans women) and the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond would only be accessible to people who have decided to live their lives as women (including trans women but excluding trans men).

What is the difference? Who makes the judgement? I'm not sure what it means to 'live your life as a woman' - might I be excluded despite my sex being female? What is the current system? If the men's pond welcomes people who aren't biologically male and there is no judgement of how anyone lives their life, why have the Man Friday team been excluded?

These arrangements have been in place for many years, consistent with the City Corporation’s Gender Identity Policy – adopted in 2019 following a public consultation...

Well, if you consider throwing away thousands of ballot papers, because they went against your illegal agenda a "public consultation."

Have they taken a leaf out of Leonardo's book, on having a show of hands to see if they should ignore the law? FFS!

Luckily, they will be worried about upsetting the men in the men’s pond if they make all the ponds mixed sex to spite the women (they won’t care about upsetting the women of course, we should be grateful for what they decide to give us). And they can’t make the women’s pond mixed sex but not the men’s unless they want a sex discrimination case against them.

Yes. The men won't want to be arsed with all this, they take no truck with identity as proven several times, and the police will help them. Gender mess is women's work apparently.

But as you say: protect a men's space and legally they are fucked.

I assume with the first option a man could turn up with a full beard dressed in typical men’s clothing saying he IDd as a woman and meet the criteria for entry and in the second he would have to have tried to dress as the sex he emulates or possibly even have a GRC. I don’t see in practice they’d actually be operated differently.