Last Thursday brought two moments that should settle the trans inclusion debate, if we’re willing to listen to evidence. The High Court refused permission for judicial review of Hampstead Heath’s trans-inclusive bathing policy. The same day, the City of London published consultation results showing what 38,445 people actually think about it.

The media focused on the court ruling, spinning it as women being “denied justice.” That’s nonsense. Mrs Justice Lieven simply said Sex Matters used the wrong legal procedure – they need a County Court discrimination claim, not judicial review. Standard civil procedure, not conspiracy.

The real story is what nearly 40,000 people said when asked about their actual experiences.

What the evidence shows

The numbers are overwhelming. 86% agreed the ponds should continue operating as trans-inclusive spaces. Only 13% wanted strictly biological sex-based access.

Among the 84% who had actually swum at the ponds, 81% reported positive experiences, 10% reported negative experiences, and 2% reported mixed experiences. Two-thirds had used the ponds within the previous three months. These are people describing what actually happens, not what they fear might happen.

The consultation tested several “compromise” positions. Every single one was rejected by overwhelming majorities.

Separate changing rooms for trans people: 90% disagreed. Characterised as discrimination and segregation.

Timetabled sessions with designated “trans times”: 90% disagreed. Respondents raised serious concerns about making trans people visible and vulnerable, increasing safety risks.

Mixed-sex facilities open to all: 66% disagreed. Opposition came mainly from people who want to preserve gendered spaces whilst supporting trans inclusion within them. The ladies’ pond as a sanctuary from cisgender men was repeatedly emphasised.

What this means for liberal policy

The findings challenge common assumptions. “Women feel unsafe with trans women present” – not according to 81% of pond users. The real safety concern raised repeatedly was about cisgender men, which is why respondents opposed making the ladies’ pond mixed-sex.

“This is a binary choice between women’s rights and trans rights” – people overwhelmingly reject this framing. They want gendered spaces that include trans people in those spaces.

“Compromise positions balance competing needs” – the consultation tested several. Each failed because they created discrimination, stigma, and practical problems worse than either maintaining or changing the current policy.

Proportionality means assessing whether restrictions achieve legitimate aims with minimum necessary harm. The consultation provides exactly that evidence. When you ask people about actual experiences rather than imagined fears, you get very different answers.

The case for evidence-based rights

A Just Society’s “Human Rights for All” policy demonstrates what evidence-based rights protection looks like: specialist advocacy for those experiencing harassment, accelerated fair legal gender recognition, and independent oversight of systems that affect people’s lives. The full policy is at ajustsociety.uk, but the principle is simple: dignity isn’t divisible, and evidence shows what’s possible when we trust it.

Now Sex Matters faces a choice. They can bring a County Court claim, but they’ll need to demonstrate the City of London’s approach isn’t proportionate when 86% support current arrangements, 81% report positive experiences, and every tested alternative created worse problems.

That’s harder than “the Supreme Court said sex means biological sex, therefore trans women must be excluded.” The law on single-sex services is more nuanced, and the evidence from Hampstead shows why.

What liberalism actually requires

Hampstead ponds have, through practice and adjustment, created something that works for the vast majority of users. Pond users value gender-segregated spaces (hence rejecting mixed-sex options), inclusion of trans people within those spaces (hence rejecting biological sex-only options), and practical, non-stigmatising arrangements (hence rejecting separate facilities and timetabled sessions).

This isn’t utopian thinking. It’s describing what already exists and demonstrably works.

Proportionality requires weighing harms. Which approach causes more harm: maintaining arrangements that 81% experience positively, or implementing changes that would exclude or stigmatise trans people whilst potentially not even satisfying those with concerns?

Liberalism means trusting evidence over fear-mongering. It means asking what actually happens rather than what we imagine might happen. It means recognising that rights are lived, negotiated, and tested in shared spaces over time.

After nearly a decade of trans-inclusive operation, the overwhelming majority of users want to preserve what they’ve built together. That’s not sentiment – it’s evidence.

Those claiming to speak for women’s safety whilst ignoring what actual women report aren’t protecting anyone. They’re protecting an ideology the evidence has demolished. Time for liberals to choose: evidence-based policy, or culture war talking points dressed up as concern.

A longer version of this piece can be found here on A Just Society.

* Tanya Park is a Lib Dem County, Borough & Town councillor in Eastleigh, Hampshire and writes at A Just Society, a liberal policy project making the case for radical progressive policies grounded in liberal principles.