The Hampstead Heath bathing ponds have been part of London life for over a century. The Ladies' Pond opened in 1925. The Men's Pond in 1890. The Mixed Pond has been in use since the 1860s. People have been swimming there, in all weathers, through all kinds of history, for generations. And for decades, trans people have been among them, quietly, without drama, without incident.
That changed when Sex Matters, the anti-trans campaign group run by Maya Forstater and loudly backed by JK Rowling, announced it was threatening legal action to have trans people excluded from the Ladies' Pond. This followed the UK Supreme Court's ruling last year that the Equality Act 2010 should be interpreted by reference to biological sex. Sex Matters read that ruling as a green light to start pushing trans people out of spaces they had shared peaceably for years.
The City of London Corporation, which manages the ponds, launched a public consultation in October. More than 38,000 people responded. And here is what they said: 86% voted to continue the current trans-inclusive policy. The same proportion strongly opposed strict single-sex access. Two thirds also opposed making all ponds mixed-sex. The community was not confused about what it wanted. It wanted what it already had: calm, safe, welcoming spaces where everyone is treated with dignity.
The City of London Corporation listened. Chris Hayward, the policy chairman, put it plainly: "The message from regular swimmers and the wider community was clear: people want these Ponds to remain safe, respectful, and inclusive." He also addressed the legal argument head-on, noting that the Supreme Court judgment confirmed a legal definition of sex but did not require all trans-inclusive services to become single-sex. The CLC took detailed legal advice throughout, and their conclusion is that inclusion and lawfulness are not in conflict here.
Sex Matters' director Fiona McAnena disagrees, claiming the decision breaches the Equality Act and that female users do not expect to encounter "male people in bikinis" in the showers. That framing takes a trans woman, strips her of her identity, reduces her to her birth assignment, and then positions her as a threat. It is not a legal argument. It is a rhetorical move designed to make trans women sound dangerous and alien. It does not reflect the experience of the thousands of people who swim at those ponds and who voted, overwhelmingly, to keep them as they are.
The people who actually use these spaces were asked what they wanted. They answered clearly. That is democracy in its most direct form, and the result should give us all some genuine encouragement. Because what we sometimes lose sight of, when the noise from campaign groups and courtrooms gets very loud, is that most people, when asked, choose kindness. They choose inclusion. They are not frightened of their trans neighbours. They are not clamouring for exclusion. They just want to swim.
People tell me, over and over, that one of the hardest things about being trans is the feeling of not belonging anywhere. Of being the subject of a debate rather than a member of a community. What happened at Hampstead is a small but real counter to that. Thirty-eight thousand people said: you belong here. That matters to every trans person who has ever wondered whether the world has any room for them.
The Supreme Court ruling has been used, repeatedly, as a battering ram against trans inclusion in public life. What the Hampstead result shows is that a legal interpretation, however consequential, does not automatically translate into what communities actually want. Law sets a floor, not a ceiling. Organisations can choose to be more inclusive than the minimum the law requires, and when they ask the people who use their spaces, they are finding that inclusion is exactly what those people want.
I hope the City of London Corporation holds firm. I hope other organisations watching this take note. And I hope every trans person in London who loves to swim knows that the ponds are still theirs.