For a century, Kenwood ladies’ pond on Hampstead Heath in north London had been a haven for women – gay, straight, secular, observant and everything in between. Then in 2019, the City of London Corporation, which manages the bathing pond, issued guidance dictating that trans women could swim there.
Suddenly a schism appeared among the regulars: pond Terfs who protested the change vs a mostly younger, right-on cadre who applauded it. Trans women have reportedly been swimming at the ladies’ pond informally for decades, but this was a quiet, largely unacknowledged practice that happened unobtrusively – not a source of division or discord among swimmers.
Then came last month’s Supreme Court ruling that the definition of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 is based on biological sex. Many swimmers hoped that this meant the 2019 guidance would be rescinded. They have been disappointed: the City of London Corporation has so far refused to commit to upholding the ruling – and now the discontent swirling around the pond has intensified.
On the May Day bank holiday, a group of women wearing moustaches, beards and wigs stormed the nearby men’s pond. Their argument was that if they claimed to be men they should be allowed in, in the same way that men claiming to be women are allowed to access the ladies’ pond. Chanting ‘No goolies in our poolies’ and waving placards proclaiming, ‘No peens in our pond’, the women bypassed a locked gate and police guard and jumped into the water.
Venice Allan, who last year became the first woman ever to be banned from the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association after using the annual general meeting to berate those who voted against a motion to exclude trans women from the pond, warned of more to come. She posted on X: ‘This is a public message to the @cityoflondon, if you continue to break the law by allowing men into our ladies’ pond, women will take it back by force.’ She clarified that she didn’t mean ‘we’re gonna have weapons’, but added: ‘Occupations do happen.’
Many regulars like me are grateful to moustache-donning harridans because we really aren’t comfortable with trans women being allowed into the ladies’ pond. In part, it is because one now must be vigilant in the showers. It is also because the debate has turned this paradisal, peaceful spot into a high-stakes, bad-tempered political boxing ring.
‘If you continue to break the law by allowing men into our ladies’ pond, women will take it back by force’
On a recent visit I spoke to Tamar, a rabbi in her late fifties, who was sitting on a bench with her wife Jo. ‘I don’t feel it’s as relaxing a place to come any more,’ Tamar said. ‘There’s always the fear here that someone will chance it, a trans-identified male. I always have a look around here to make sure there isn’t someone.’ She mentioned an incident in which ‘two very young men were brought in by a woman. They didn’t go into the changing areas. But they sat on the meadow and it was clear they were saying, “We’re here to prove a point, that we can be here.”’
Tamar and Jo are prepared to come to any future protest. They went to one last year, when, says Tamar, ‘a lot of the people I spoke to genuinely didn’t know that people could say they were female and that’s it. I had some long conversations with people who hadn’t really thought about it. There was also a group of young women who were really aggressive and angry, shouting “Educate yourself.”’ Jo added: ‘Not all trans women using the pond are bad, but some will be. That’s why you have single-sex places. No matter how passionate you are about inclusivity, you have to draw the line somewhere.’
While the younger generation is generally considered to be more sympathetic towards the trans rights movement, the divide isn’t absolute. I asked 25-year-old Zara, who works in sales, and Kate, also 25 and an account manager, what they made of the battle for the pond. Both were committed hockey players and had been angered by the threat of biological males being allowed to compete with women. In comparison, the issue of ladies’ pond access seemed less urgent to them, but Kate agreed with Zara that ‘biological males are males’. ‘Why can’t trans women just use the mixed pond?’ they wondered. ‘It’s so tranquil, so secluded. Why don’t they go there? Why does the ladies’ pond need to be disrupted?’
To other pond regulars, it’s a non-issue. A lean middle-aged teacher getting into her Dryrobe after a swim said she wouldn’t mind if trans women continued to be allowed in. ‘I find the whole thing perplexing,’ she said. ‘The problem with the [Supreme Court] ruling is that it raises the question: where do they belong then?’
On a bench in the meadow next to the ladies’ pond, I found a pro-trans couple with a very different view to the rabbi and her wife. Anna, a 37-year-old working in mental health, and her partner Lauren, 28, who worked in a men’s prison assisting foreign inmates, planned to counter-protest because ‘trans women are women despite what the courts say’. Lauren feared that ‘businesses would start policing who is a woman… How do you know? Looking at genitals?’ (To which I thought, well, yes.)
Anna felt that the ‘healing’ nature of the ladies’ pond was being threatened despite years of ‘peaceful’ use of it by trans women. While she did admit that she’d prefer not to be naked around a penis, she added: ‘You get exhibitionists wherever you are.’
Soon after this conversation, a lifeguard raced by, urging us to cover up and warning: ‘A man is coming through!’ The man was coming in to fix something, she added apologetically. At least we could all agree on one thing: there’s a world of difference between a man who calls himself a man and a man who calls himself a woman – and when there’s work to be done, it’s still, by and large, a man who calls himself a man who must do it.
Comments