Staff across Hampstead Heath’s bathing ponds have been barred from commenting on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling reaffirming women’s rights to single-sex spaces, even as the public body responsible for them continues to uphold a policy of gender self-identification for patrons.
In a move described as “draconian” by women’s rights activists, the City of London Corporation told staff they “must not get drawn into any conversations” with swimmers about the ruling.
The gagging notice followed the Corporation’s confirmation that its gender self-identification policy would “remain in effect at this time” at both the Men’s Pond and Kenwood Ladies’ Pond – two of the three bathing facilities on Hampstead Heath, the third being a mixed-sex pond. Under the current policy, trans individuals can choose whichever pond aligns with their gender identity, including the single-sex pools.
As reported in The Telegraph, a notice in the staff hut states: “Until further notices from our senior management team we must not get drawn into any conversations with swimmers or visitors about the ruling.”
If asked about the issue, staff are instructed to respond: “We are continuing as we are until we hear further from our senior management team.” They are also told to refer questions to the press office and report any swimmer who raises concerns over the lack of single-sex provision to their line manager.
The notice adds: “Please make sure you report any issues or inappropriate behaviour related to the above, using our incident reporting form and let your Team Leader know so we can escalate accordingly.”
What constitutes “inappropriate behaviour” isn’t specified – a notable omission, given that staff are being instructed to remain silent on a matter of legitimate public interest. Legal experts say the Corporation’s position is now far from clear, and that the issue is plainly one that concerned patrons will want to discuss with staff.
That is especially true in light of the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, which ruled that the word “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not self-identified gender, even in cases where a Gender Recognition Certificate has been issued.
The law – specifically Schedule 3 of the Equality Act – permits service providers to exclude trans people from single-sex services where the exclusion is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. In practice, this means they must weigh competing rights – such as the privacy, dignity, or safety of women using the service – and consider whether those aims could be met in a less restrictive way.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) confirmed that the existence of alternative arrangements, such as gender-neutral facilities, is directly relevant to this assessment. Where such alternatives exist, exclusion is more likely to be deemed proportionate. The EHRC also made clear that in order to retain their legal status, single-sex services must apply sex-based criteria unless they can justify inclusion of the opposite sex under a lawful exemption.
Women’s rights campaigners have seized on this point, arguing that the presence of a third, mixed-sex pond at Hampstead Heath undermines any claim that inclusion at the women’s or men’s ponds is necessary, and may render continued trans inclusion at those sites unlawful.
Venice Allan, 49, a feminist activist leading efforts to restore Kenwood Ladies’ Pond as a female-only space, said: “There are three ponds and people with gender identities are safe and welcome at the mixed-sex pond.”
Ms Allan also criticised the decision by council chiefs to limit what swimming staff could say about the ruling.
“Not content with breaking the law, the City of London Corporation is now dragging its own staff into complicity,” she said. “This draconian order appears to gag workers from even acknowledging their employer’s unlawful conduct to the public.”
“It also instructs staff to report any instance of a swimmer having the temerity to question the breach – effectively encouraging them to inform on concerned members of the public to senior corporation bosses. It’s chilling.”
Legal experts have also warned that continuing to label Hampstead Heath’s facilities as “men’s” or “ladies’” while permitting access on the basis of self-identified gender could now expose the Corporation to legal challenge, particularly where the resulting provision excludes biological women seeking single-sex privacy.
Sarah Vine KC, a prominent barrister, told The Telegraph that if the City of London Corporation wished to maintain its gender self-ID stance, it “should not describe the ponds as anything other than mixed-sex”.
She said: “Any continued description of two of the ponds as ‘men’s’ and ‘ladies’ will expose the Corporation to discrimination claims; the practical effect of doing so is far more likely to result in a de facto single-sex facility for men, who can enjoy the consequential privacy, with no corresponding provision for women.”
Ms Vine added: “This is despite the fact that women’s overall need for safety and privacy is generally higher than that of men.”
The legal dispute comes as campaigners staged a protest at the Men’s Pond on Monday, dubbed “Bank Holiday Man-Day”.
The action echoes a similar 2018 protest, in which gender critical activists wore fake beards and male swimsuits to make the point that a policy based on how people identify themselves was open to abuse. That protest followed the Corporation’s original adoption of a gender self-identification policy, under which trans women were formally granted access to the women’s pond for the first time.
Seven years on, the ripples from that protest have collided with the force of a Supreme Court ruling. Despite the legal clarity, it’s clear the clash over single-sex spaces – and attempts to stifle debate about them – are far from over.
There’s more on this story here.
