Latest news with #EqualityActof2010
New York Times
01-05-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Explained: Why the English Football Association has barred transgender women from women's game
The English Football Association will no longer allow transgender women to play in women's football from June 1 after a significant change to its policy was confirmed this morning. The FA had already tightened its eligibility criteria for transgender women and non-binary players as recently as last month but a ruling in the UK's Supreme Court on April 16 has forced further change. That verdict, where the legal definition of a woman would be based on biological sex, has now led the FA to amend its own inclusion policy, with transgender women prohibited from playing women's football a month from today. The FA has had a transgender inclusion policy in place since 2015, in their words to help 'support the small number of transgender women who would like to play in the grassroots game, providing it can be done without sacrificing fair and safe competition.' The last decade has seen 72 transgender footballers take part in grassroots games, with the FA previously classifying transgender women as those who have undergone hormone therapy or had a gonadectomy 'with results in blood testosterone within natal female range.' Advertisement Each player was assessed on a case-by-case basis, with the FA retaining the ultimate discretion over their involvement. Hormone treatment would also be reviewed annually, typically at the start of each season. Changes to that policy were introduced on April 11, with stricter criteria outlining that reduced testosterone levels would need to be met. Levels had to be below 5nmol per litre over a 12-month period, as well as a 'match observation' process of each player wishing to be eligible. That would judge if the player presented a risk to 'the safety of competitors, and/or fair competition.' The FA said its previous policy on a 'complex subject' was 'supported by expert legal advice'. From June 1, a month from now, transgender women will not be allowed to continue playing in women's football. Only those born as biological females will be eligible across all levels. 'We understand that this will be difficult for people who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify, and we are contacting the registered transgender women currently playing to explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved in the game,' the FA said in a statement. The FA's change sees them fall in line with other major sports in the UK. The Rugby Football Union, British Cycling and British Rowing had previously banned transgender athletes from competing under the Equality Act of 2010, which included sporting exemptions if one sex was placed at a physical 'disadvantage' against other competitors. England Netball also followed the FA's lead this morning by barring transgender athletes from competing. A change to their policy says 'the female category will be exclusively for players born female, irrespective of their gender identity.' As the FA made clear in today's statement, the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on April 16 has forced change across UK sport. That surrounded a far-reaching case brought by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), which challenged the Scottish government's assertion that sex-based protections in the Equality Act 2010 should include transgender people with a gender recognition certificate. Advertisement FWS, which began its legal battle as far back as 2018, asked the Supreme Court to define sex as an 'immutable biological state' and won the backing of five judges last month. It was their belief that only biological women met the legal definition of a woman. 'The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,' Judge Lord Hodge told the court. 'But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.' The implications of the ruling have promised to be wide-ranging. As well as transgender women no longer being able to sit on public boards in places reserved for women, it is expected to shape social policymaking on issues such as public changing rooms and women-only spaces. Football — and other sports — have now felt the impact. The FA said that a 'material change in law, science or the operation of the policy in grassroots football' would bring a review and the Supreme Court's verdict has led to the point where transgender women will no longer be eligible. The decision is thought to impact between 20 and 30 transgender players, all at the grassroots level of the English game. The reaction, inevitably, has been polarising. Fair Play for Women, the campaign group, welcomed the decision as a 'massive development' on X, while FWS said 'not before time' on the same platform. There are, though, others dismayed by the decision. Goal Diggers FC, a trans-inclusive grassroots team established in 2015, announced last month they had arranged a 12-mile sponsored walk from the club's training pitches in Haggerston to Wembley, to 'deliver a letter to the FA to urge them to rethink their transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming grassroots football policy.' The walk is scheduled to take place on Monday. Advertisement Before the FA's ruling, Natalie Washington, the lead organiser of the Football v Transphobia campaign and who has played grassroots football since 2017, told The Athletic that she feared trans people would be driven away from the sport in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment. 'It happens whenever there is a policy change like this, and it's already started to happen this week,' she said. 'My worry is that trans people will just decide sport is not for them and we will end up with a group of people who are less active, less fit and less happy.' Washington told told UK broadcaster ITV News today that she would almost certainly have to give up the sport after the FA's announcement. 'I'm in a semi-rural area, there are no inclusive teams, specific LGBT teams or anything like that, there is only the competitive men's game and the competitive women's game, and you can only play in one,' she said. 'And if I'm not eligible in one and I'm not safe in the other, then that is probably it for me in terms of playing.'
Economist
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Economist
Women win legal clarity—but Britain's gender wars intensify
IT WAS A landmark decision. On April 16th Britain's Supreme Court ruled that, for the purposes of the Equality Act of 2010, the country's main anti-discrimination law, 'man' refers to a biological man and 'woman' to a biological woman. The judgment ended years of legal uncertainty about such matters. Since sex is a protected characteristic under the act, it means a space or service that excludes men, such as a women's bathroom, can also exclude all transgender women (biological males). The next day, the British Transport Police announced it would now conduct strip searches on the basis of biological sex, rather than how a person identifies.
Daily Record
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Record
John Swinney refuses to say if trans women are women again
John Swinney has again refused to say whether transwomen are women. The First Minister avoided a "yes or no" question on the subject in Holyrood on Thursday afternoon. Instead he stated that the Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Courts judgement "that a woman in the Equality Act 2010 is defined by biological sex." Swinney had previously avoided the question during his anti-Reform summit on Wednesday. Scottish Tory MSP Douglas Ross asked during First Minister's Questions: "This is a very straightforward question . "Does the First Minister believe that a trans woman is a woman: yes or no?" Swinney replied: "I've set out that the Scottish Government accepts the judgement of the Supreme Court which ruled that a woman in the Equality Act 2010 is defined by biological sex." On Wednesday, April 16, the country's top judges unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law in a case brought against the Scottish Government by the group For Women Scotland. A judge also ordered that Scottish schools must provide single-sex toilets on Wednesday. At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scottish Borders Council conceded that they legally need to provide male and female toilets. Parents had brought the case to court after the authority only installed gender neutral toilets. Alba MSP Ash Regan urged for such policies to be withdrawn during FMQs. Regan said: "The Court of Session ruling against Scottish Borders Council marks yet another legal failure to uphold long-standing protections for women and children - this time involving a primary school child. "It exposes this broader pattern of public bodies disregarding the Equality Act of 2010 and other regulations in place since 1967. "The undue influence of activist lobby groups, like LGBT Youth Scotland, has led to policies breaching single-sex safeguards. "All such policies must now be withdrawn. "Will public funding finally be withdrawn from organisations that are wrongly advising that gender self-ID is lawful in Scotland when it never has been?" Swinney replied: "Throughout this whole discussion I have made clear that the rule of law must be the central consideration of the actions of government. "That is what we will take forward in all of our judgements . "I am aware of the judicial review announcement which was announced by the Court of Session yesterday in relation to Scottish Borders Council. "That is not a judgment that involves the Government. It involves Scottish Borders Council. "But of course the government will consider the issues that arise out of that as we consider all aspects of the reform of regulation that is required." To sign up to the Daily Record Politics newsletter, click here
Extra.ie
24-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Extra.ie
Man of the moment Pedro Pascal hits out at 'heinous LOSER' JK Rowling following Supreme Court ruling
Pedro Pascal has hit out at JK Rowling, branding her a 'heinous LOSER' after the UK Supreme Court's ruling over the definition of a woman. Last week, the court ruled that transgender women would not be included under the definition of 'woman' under the Equality Act of 2010. It is understood Harry Potter author Rowling funded the campaign group which brought the Supreme Court case. It is understood Harry Potter author Rowling funded the campaign group which brought the Supreme Court case. Pic: X/ JK Rowling Following the ruling, the 59-year-old posed on her yacht as she puffed a celebratory cigar. Activist Tariq Ra'ouf took to social media calling on any future Harry Potter projects to be boycotted as he branded Rowling's move as 'serious Voldemort villain sh**.' Detailing how JK was 'reveling' in having helped the UK Supreme Court, Tariq noted the author had 'stoked hatred and fear into the general public about a very small minority population.' Pedro Pascal commented on the reel discussing JK Rowling's reaction to the ruling Pic: Instagram 'She's so cocky about getting the same royalties whether or not you burn or read a Harry Potter book,' he said, 'So, I think it has become our mission, as the general public, to make sure that every single thing that's Harry Potter related fails.' Tariq added: 'Don't watch the show. Don't go to Universal. Don't buy a single Harry Potter thing ever. It's time to tell these corporations that transphobia loses money.' The Last of Us star Pedro led support, writing: 'Awful disgusting SH*T is exactly right. Heinous LOSER behaviour.' Pedro Pascal has hit out at JK Rowling, branding her a 'heinous LOSER' after the UK Supreme Court's ruling over the definition of a woman. Pic: Tim P. Whitby/Getty Images for The Walt Disney Company Limited The 50-year-old actor has been very open and advocative for his support with trans-right and the LGBTQ community. Pedro's sister, Lux, is a transgender woman who came out and transitioned in 2021. The latest from the actor comes not long after he took to the red carpet for the European premiere of his new Marvel film, Thunderbolts, with a white t-shirt which read 'Protect The Dolls.' The t-shirt was created by US designer Conner Ives, with dolls signifying how transgender women are referred to within the LGBTQIA+ community.
The Herald Scotland
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
This posturing politician has done trans people no favours
Feelings about the judgment understandably run high, but there is a chasm of difference between expressing regret about it and stating without a shred of evidence that the judges themselves are motivated by hatred. This from an MSP and deputy convener of the equalities, human rights and civil justice committee who has an explicit duty to uphold the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. If she were on the hard right rather than the hard left, her attack on judges for doing their job would be called Trumpian, but Chapman seems to imagine herself entitled to say whatever she likes from deep inside her bubble of self-righteousness. Read more by Rebecca McQuillan Is it that she just has poor judgment? Does she really see every political issue in terms of moral absolutes? Is she hopelessly clumsy or, forgive me Maggie, not very bright? I claim no insider perspective on that, but struggle to understand what she imagines she is achieving by behaving in this way. Maggie Chapman seems to be deeply challenged when recognising the limits of acceptable political discourse. This is the person who shared a social media message from another account a few days after the Hamas massacre of 1,300 people in October 2023 which stated the attack was not terrorism but rather an act of 'decolonisation'. It was met with a wave of revulsion, forcing her to delete the tweet and apologise. Even her fellow Greens disavowed it. Now she is attacking the judiciary. There is such a thing as standards. If Holyrood is going to accept this conduct, we might as well festoon the place in red and white bunting and call it a circus. Attacking the Supreme Court like this is extraordinary. The judges were not assessing the rights and wrongs of restricting women-only spaces to biological women, their task was to judge what MPs meant by 'sex' in the Equality Act of 2010, legislation which gives protection against discrimination on the basis of sex as well as other characteristics. They ruled, unanimously, that the only interpretation that made sense was biological sex, though added that the legislation continued to give transgender people protections against discrimination and the ruling should not be seen as a triumph by one side over the other. Even if you are disappointed with the outcome, it is evidently a reasoned legal judgment on a highly contentious subject, handled with care. Except not to Chapman: to her, it must be motivated by bigotry. Roddy Dunlop KC, representing the Faculty of Advocates, calls Chapman's comments on the Supreme Court 'irresponsible and reprehensible' and has warned they 'create a risk of danger' to the members of the court. Dunlop said that the Faculty didn't normally involve itself in politics but had a 'duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary when it comes under attack' as it did when the Daily Mail branded judges 'enemies of the people' during the Brexit era and when the previous UK government attacked so-called 'activist lawyers'. He added: 'It really should not require to be said, but the Supreme Court – indeed, all judges – are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath. 'For Ms Chapman to claim that they were swayed by 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' is outrageous.' The Faculty has called on her to apologise and argued, quite reasonably, that she should consider her position as deputy convener of the equalities committee. Roddy Dunlop KC (Image: PA) Chapman is refusing to apologise and refusing to budge. One wonders how on earth she imagines all this can possibly help trans people. For them, this is a frightening and dispiriting moment. They are waiting anxiously to discover how this ruling will affect what changing rooms they may use or what hospital beds they can access, and feel worried that the ruling will be misrepresented as a way to challenge the legitimacy of their identity. Trans people report feeling afraid of what will come next. What has never helped their cause one iota, however, has been intolerant, abusive rhetoric from their self-appointed spokespeople. For a long time now, there has been a powerful reluctance among the most vocal trans activists to acknowledge that any concerns raised by women about their rights and safeguards might be legitimate, as if this were a zero-sum game in which trans rights can only be advanced if women's concerns are ignored. Infamously the tactic has been to imply that those who raise such concerns are transphobic – even Nicola Sturgeon did that. The charge of bigotry has been hurled about almost indiscriminately. Chapman's attack on the Supreme Court is very much in that vein. Does she not understand that her behaviour makes it all too easy for opponents to dismiss her as an extremist? If Chapman believes that women-only spaces should be open to anyone who feels themselves to be female, she is entitled to express that view and push for changes to make that explicit. What she is not entitled to do is make politically motivated attacks on the judiciary, or wage a campaign to smear and misrepresent anyone she regards as an impediment to her campaign. When the dust settles on this episode, trans people will have an opportunity to reflect on the way those who have led the trans rights campaign have conducted themselves. They may well conclude that some, like Maggie Chapman, have done more harm than good. Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist specialising in politics and Scottish affairs. She can be found on X at @BecMcQ and on Bluesky at @
