The Kenwood Ladies’ Pond, nestled deep within Hampstead Heath, has for over a century served as a sanctuary for women — a quiet, leafy haven where women can swim freely, away from the male gaze and societal expectations. But since 2017, this historic refuge has become the centre of a stormy cultural and legal debate: should trans women be allowed access?
Two sharply opposing views have emerged, both passionate and deeply rooted in ideas of identity, safety, and fairness. The first holds that trans inclusion undermines the very nature of the pond. The other argues that trans exclusion undermines the very spirit of London.
“Of course trans women should be barred from the Ladies’ Pond”
Emma Hilton, a University of Manchester biologist and trustee of Sex Matters, is firmly in the “no” camp. She argues that the recent UK Supreme Court ruling — affirming that “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex — makes it legally untenable to include trans women in the pond while still calling it “women-only”.
Hilton and others stress that women who’ve experienced sexual violence, those from conservative religious backgrounds, and lesbians seeking safe communal spaces now feel marginalised or self-exclude due to the inclusion of male-bodied individuals.
“It’s not about hatred or exclusion,” says Hilton. “It’s about preserving a vital space for women, as defined by biology. If men can’t go to the Men’s Pond unless they’re biologically male, why the double standard for women?”
The Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association (KLPA), which supports the inclusion of trans women, is accused by critics of abandoning women’s rights. Some former members, such as Venice Allen — expelled for challenging trans access — continue to campaign for the pond to return to a female-only policy, citing safety, dignity, and legality.
“A ban would go against the spirit of the ponds”
For writer Alice Jones, however, this argument is not only flawed — it is cruel. Jones swam weekly at the Ladies’ Pond when she lived nearby, and in all that time, she never witnessed a single trans woman behaving inappropriately or making others uncomfortable.
“The ponds,” she writes, “are a haven not because they exclude, but because they welcome. There’s an unspoken code — kindness, respect, and privacy — upheld by everyone from regular swimmers to the vigilant lifeguards. That’s what makes them special.”
Jones believes that introducing a ban would not only violate the inclusive ethos of the ponds but also create a dangerous precedent. “Are we going to start checking swimmers’ genitals at the gate?” she asks. “What about butch lesbians or women with mastectomies — are they woman enough?”
In her view, the real disturbance comes not from trans women, but from a vocal minority attempting to enforce narrow definitions of womanhood. She points out that there’s been no documented instance of a trans woman at the pond harassing others — but plenty of reports of aggressive confrontations by anti-trans campaigners.
More Read
A city — and a pond — divided
At its heart, the debate at the Ladies’ Pond reflects a broader cultural tension in the UK — one between legal definitions and lived experience, between individual rights and communal values.
While campaigners such as Hilton call for strict adherence to the law post-ruling, others like Jones appeal to a more emotive argument: that the soul of London, and of the ponds themselves, lies in tolerance and coexistence.
With the City of London Corporation yet to clarify its final policy, and both sides entrenched, this debate is far from over. What’s clear, however, is that whatever happens next will ripple well beyond the surface of the Ladies’ Pond.
Do you believe the definition of women-only spaces should change with society, or remain tied to biological sex?
