6 June 2026 - 1:00pm
The City of London Corporation has ruled that the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond at Hampstead Heath is to remain open to biological males. At first glance, this may not seem in keeping with the definition of a ladies’ pond. However, according to Chris Hayward, the Corporation’s chair, it’s in keeping with “the character and unique spirit of the ponds”. It appears a female-only space would just ruin the vibe.
It’s not the first time this argument has been used to suggest that, even if the For Women Scotland judgment affirmed that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, “woman” should mean “biological female”, only churlish people would actually take it seriously. Take parkrun, for instance. If you are a nice, inclusive person, you understand that the character and spirit of parkrun is that of a fun run, and only an evil bigot would care about the age and sex placings that are given out for no reason whatsoever. Similarly, if you are the kind of person who wants to chill at a woman-only pond, you would understand that woman-only means open to everyone. Otherwise, you’re just not “welcoming” enough to fit in.
According to Sex Matters’ Fiona McAnena, CLC members “have voted to unlawfully discriminate and harass women using the Ladies’ Pond”. The CLC’s counter-argument would be that most respondents to their public consultation (86%) voted to keep all pools mixed-sex. Of course, this is not how they phrase it — the term favoured is “trans-inclusive”, in keeping with the idea that this is about being kind to the vulnerable. In accordance with this view, the minority that still wants woman-only to mean woman-only no doubt deserves a little unlawful discrimination for the sake of the greater good.
Is this what feminists thought would happen, back when we celebrated the April 2025 ruling? Certainly, things have not run as smoothly as we might have liked. In some quarters, the backlash has been intense, with defenders of trans-inclusion behaving as though adult human females were a recent invention, dreamed up for the sole purpose of making others feel sad. The Supreme Court victory followed over a decade in which the dominant media narrative pitched poor, marginalised trans people against wicked, selfish Terfs. By the time the law was reaffirmed, this narrative had already become deeply embedded. It may take a decade or more to undo, something that cannot be achieved by the law alone.
McAnena is right when she says “female users don’t expect to encounter male people in bikinis or sometimes even naked in the showers at the Ladies’ Pond”. I suspect this is true even of some female users who voted in favour of “trans inclusion”, picturing something entirely different. Because “trans” is defined so vaguely — merging gender-distressed teenagers, children who may otherwise grow up to be gay, and adult men who have watched too much sissy porn — it is very difficult to express what is happening in simple terms: that trans inclusion permits men to enter any spaces they choose, and it will be the most disrespectful men, not the most vulnerable, who will select the female-only spaces. Instead, the #BeKind narrative would have it that McAnena is smearing innocent people who want to swim.
In an ideal world, the Supreme Court victory would have been followed by humble apologies from all those who misrepresented the law. There would have been an understanding that consent is not transferable and that in a male-dominated world, mixed-sex spaces force many women to self-exclude. Instead, organisations such as Girlguiding, the Women’s Institute, and every major trade union have gone out of their way to alienate those who value single-sex spaces. Even when forced to obey the law, they have made clear their belief that this is not what good people do.
This does not mean feminists have won the battle but lost the war. It does mean right now every victory is painted as an act of aggression, rather than a reclaiming of what should never have been taken in the first place. When Chris Hayward tells women who want a women-only space that their desires go against “the character and unique spirit of the ponds”, he’s the one being exclusionary. He’s the one telling a minority that they don’t belong anywhere. We need to keep telling this story, the true one, until we have more than just the law on our side.
