It’s time for action

Every women’s category in sport must be restricted to those who are female.

We’ve seen the brave women in English pool win their fight. But other sports and games are holding out. Some have been engaged in seemingly interminable reviews, which must surely now come to an end. We can all encourage them to do this.

Others adopted post-puberty policies, even though it is proven that male advantage is present throughout childhood. Such policies are more common at international level, where they create a perverse incentive to block a boy’s puberty in order to create the chance of international sporting stardom and riches.

Rules must be enforced

Every sport must make the rules clear, simple and enforceable.

UK Athletics declared its protection of the female category in March 2023 when World Athletics did so, but has yet to publish clear rules for event organisers. Male runners continue to register as female for races, including prestigious events like the London Marathon. When these rule-breakers are reported, event organisers and national federations are sometimes unwilling to intervene, as if it is unkind to enforce the rules. This has to stop. Sport relies on rules that everyone understands and follows. Rule-breakers cannot be indulged.

Recreational sport billed as women-only must be what it claims

Women-only swimming, exercise classes, guided bike rides and so on must be only for women and girls, not for those who “identify as female”. Otherwise they are largely pointless, other than as a validation of adopted identities. 

Facilities matter too

Changing rooms and toilets in leisure centres, gyms and swimming pools must be single-sex. 

There are two problems here. Too many service-providers have allowed men with trans identities to use the women’s facilities, or have been unwilling to confirm to women that they will not do so. The FWS judgment should give them the confidence, and everyone else the leverage, to insist that a “women” sign on the door means no men.

The other problem has been the move to replace single-sex facilities with so-called “gender-neutral changing villages”. It is becoming increasingly clear that these are a voyeur’s paradise, especially in the smartphone age. Resisting more of these is easier than getting the existing ones changed back.

Why is this still a problem?

Some sports are still dragging their heels, claiming it is complex, or that they cannot police people’s sex. This is nonsense. Throughout the twentieth century, men’s and women’s sport categories worked fine. Everyone knows their own sex, whether they like it or not. 

Most sports operate online membership and event entry systems. People must be told to register honestly. Just as with age categories, proof may sometimes be called for. If someone appears to be in the wrong sex (or age) category, the onus is on them to prove their eligibility, not on event organisers to prove the opposite. 

Other sports have decided it only matters at some levels. The Lawn Tennis Association adopted female-at-birth rules for interclub competition but not for matches within clubs, even though this is the vast majority of play. Golf has adopted a similar approach, making it difficult for women to have male-free events by claiming that the handicap system will take care of trans-identifying men’s advantage so they can play in women’s handicap events.

Mass participation running events also trivialise women’s ambition and achievements by adopting two-tier rules. London Marathon Events follows England Athletics rules for its top categories in the London Marathon, covering about 3,000 women, but allows sex self-identification for its mass race, covering about 20,000 women. There is nothing in science or law to support this. London Marathon Events runs other large races too, with a similar approach.

The weekly 5K runs organised by Parkrun offer four categories at registration: male, female, “another gender identity” and “prefer not to say”. But it encourages and celebrates men registered as women, allowing them to claim first female finisher, top age grades, and course records (which it has now concealed in a vain attempt to hide the problem). This validation of cross-sex identities is totally unnecessary at Parkrun, since anyone can just turn up and run. Men and women line up together, no one declares anything about themselves, and there are no bib or race numbers to reveal name or sex. The disincentive to women who are bumped down in the results in any race where a man can register as a woman is totally discounted. His need for validation is seemingly all that matters. 

What are we doing?

The Sex Matters executive team is maintaining its behind-the-scenes engagement with governing bodies for sport, across the UK, to encourage and assist them in replacing bad policies with lawful, fair ones. We’ve talked to around seventy different organisations, often several times. The Supreme Court ruling is a catalyst for a few more to wake up and see that this needs to be fixed. We’re on it.

Separately, our trustee Dr Emma Hilton has been consulted by some twenty international federations. Advisory group members including Cathy Devine, Tracy Edwards, Professor Jon Pike and Mara Yamauchi are also involved in shaping sports policies. 

What can you do?

Help us to keep the pressure on. Check out our new campaign page Protect sport for women and girls; tell sport governing bodies what you think, and if male inclusion in female sport has affected you, let us know. 

The post What next for sport? appeared first on Sex Matters.

Pool has hit the news again this week because on 6th April the final of the latest UPG women’s tournament was contested by two male players, Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith. Haynes picked up the £1,800 prize money, Smith the £900 runner-up purse.

In August 2023, three pool organisations – UPG, WEBF and a third body, England Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) – jointly announced that their women’s events would be for those female at birth. This was a reversal of past self-ID policy. They did this because a trans-identifying male player, Harriet Haynes, appeared to be dominating in women’s events. 

In response, Haynes threatened all three with legal action. UPG and WEBF backed down in October 2023, reverting to their previous policy that anyone could self-identify into the women’s events. One, EBPF, did not. 

All three bodies are now defending discrimination cases. The two that changed their rules to allow the trans-identifying male player are being sued for discrimination by a group of almost 30 women, led by six named players including Lynne Pinches, who forfeited a match against Haynes in 2023.

In parallel, Haynes is suing the EBPF for having refused to amend its rules to let him into its women’s events. That is the case being heard at Canterbury Magistrates Court from 7th to 11th April 2025. 

What are the legal arguments?

In each case, the claim is of discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic. Haynes argues that EBPF have excluded him because he is trans (meaning that he has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment). In the other case, the women say that to allow male players into the women’s category is discrimination against them on the basis of their sex, because men in pool have a fair category and they do not. Both will be citing the Equality Act 2010.

Pool is what is known as a precision sport. The cases will feature expert witnesses on both sides. In the Haynes v EBPF case, a trans-identifying male academic and football player, Dr Blair Hamilton, will be an expert witness arguing for Haynes and other trans-identifying male players to be admitted into women’s tournaments. For the defence in that case, Dr Emma Hilton, a developmental biologist and a trustee of Sex Matters, will provide evidence that pool is a sex-affected sport, in which male players have significant advantages. For example, on average their reach is greater; their upper-body strength means they can hit the opening break shot more effectively; and those two factors combine to give them better accuracy in potting balls. That means that it is lawful, under s.195 of the Equality Act, to provide a women-only category of competition and to exclude all males, including those claiming the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. 

The Equality Act says this is permitted in:

“a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity”.

There is no provision to argue that some males – those with a transgender identity – should be permitted while others – those who admit to being men – should not. But this is the line being taken by the Haynes case. 

When will the results be known?

Judgments in county court cases, like Haynes v EBPF, can come in a matter of weeks. The claimants and defendants in the case being brought against UPG and WBPF have pursued another route to see whether agreement can be reached without a full court hearing. A decision on that should come in the next month. If they cannot agree then that case will proceed to court. 

Pool might seem an unlikely test case. It may be less obviously sex-affected than, say, weightlifting or swimming. But there is no sliding scale in the Equality Act. It’s a simple binary: whether a sport is sex-affected, in which case exclusion of every male from the women’s competitive category is lawful, or whether it is not. If pool wins, that sets a clear precedent for all other sports.

The post What does the Equality Act mean for women’s sports? appeared first on Sex Matters.

The select committee for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster has launched a new inquiry into community and school sport. Sex Matters has submitted written evidence to the inquiry showing how the failure to provide fair, safe, male-free sport is alienating some women and girls. 

Most sport is sex-affected. Any sport that runs a separate women’s category is using the exception for sport in the Equality Act which permits the exclusion of the other sex where necessary for fairness or safety. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has stated explicitly that possession of a gender-recognition certificate does not change that. Sport is played by bodies not identities. 

The UK’s sports councils, which are publicly funded, all recognise that the participation of women and girls in sport and exercise lags behind that of men and boys. Along with many national governing bodies of sport, the sports councils have a stated intention to increase female participation. Yet many sports are still allowing male players who assert that they are women into the women’s category. The transgender guidance from the Sports Councils Equality Group concluded that this cannot be reconciled with fair sport for women, and in some sports there is a safety problem too. The guidance was not prescriptive; it was merely “guidance”, and many sports continue to ignore it.

Much has been written about the problems caused for female players by trans-identifying male players in football. The appalling two-tier policy announced by the England and Wales Cricket Board last year protects around 300 female cricketers from facing male players in women’s game but leaves the other 33,000 regular female players unprotected.

But this is going on across many other sports too. World Netball banned men from the women’s category at international level, recognising both fairness and safety risks. But in the UK, England Netball allows trans-identifying males to compete against women in this quintessentially women’s sport, as long as they suppress their testosterone. The Sports Councils Equality Group guidance says this measure does not remove male advantage. For under-18s, England Netball places no restrictions on trans-identifying males in the female game. This means teenage boys can play “as girls”. England Netball also claims there are no problems with this. Members who have reported a problem have been told theirs is the only one. 

Other mass-participation sports, such as golf and tennis, have compromised too, refusing to restore a protected category for female players at club level. Yet that is where most people play most, often all, of their sport. Tennis players say that winning the club championship and getting your name on the winners’ board means a lot to them. But the Lawn Tennis Association policy dismisses this, saying that “within venues, the purpose is primarily to provide fun, social competition to enable people to feel part of their local tennis community”. In other words, affirming transgender identities is more important than fairness for female players.

The current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport – the government department responsible for sport, which funds the sports councils – has said that biology cannot be ignored when fairness is being considered. Her predecessor had explicitly called for the female category to be protected. But so far there has been no action to make this a reality. Who is tracking the impact of policies that allow males in women’s sport and women’s changing rooms? Not the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; not the sports councils; not individual sports governing bodies. It has been left to courageous individuals and campaign groups to report problems and collect evidence.

England Hockey finally announced a protected female category at all levels in January 2025, though Scottish and Welsh Hockey have yet to do so. New policies are on the way in several other sports. Watch this space.

The post Fairness for women in sport is only for the lucky few appeared first on Sex Matters.

There is no ambiguity, however, about the lawfulness of women’s sport. Whatever the outcome of the case it is clear that female-only competition is lawful. The Equality Act 2010, section 195 says that it is permissible to discriminate by sex in a sport or game in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex. It also makes specific provision to allow gender-reassignment discrimination wherever it is necessary to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors.

Any sport that runs separate competitive categories for men and women, or for boys and girls, is relying on s.195. There are similar permissions for age categories and for including and excluding people on the basis of nationality or place of origin (in national sports teams). 

Whatever the Supreme Court rules in the For Women Scotland case, both sex discrimination and gender-reassignment discrimination are clearly lawful in competitive sport wherever allowing men to compete against women would be unfair or unsafe. It’s useful to know that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment covers both those with a GRC and those who are “proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign [their] sex”. 

The Sports Councils Equality Group provides a legal briefing to national governing bodies that makes the position clear. We believe that the legal briefing should be made widely available but the Sports Councils Equality Group disagrees, declining to share it or publish it on its website. We obtained it through a lengthy process citing freedom of information. It can be downloaded and shared with people in sport who seem unsure what the law permits.

There is no provision in the law that requires an individualised case-by-case assessment of whether to exclude a particular male athlete from a “female-only” category. Straightforward rules can be applied. Nor does the law support the idea that sports are sex-affected a lot or only a little. Explaining s.195, the Sports Councils legal briefing says:

“Thus, for the exception to apply, there is a need to consider average persons; not individuals. This is not the average of the person who participates in the sport but on average generally, between the sexes.”

Nor is there anything about what level of sport is being played – for example, there is no basis to claim that s.195 applies to professional cricketers but not amateurs.

If a sport is sex-affected then it follows that it is not fair (and may not be safe) for men and women to compete against each other. 

Different, but still lawful, for non-competitive sport

Single-sex swimming sessions, recreational bike rides, gym classes and so on are not covered by s.195 as they are not competitive. But there are other exceptions that permit single-sex services and associations. However, this is where the law is confusing and messy. It may be clarified by the For Women Scotland case and by other cases such as those of the Darlington nurses and other workplace changing-room cases, or by the “Sarah Surviving” case concerning a rape-counselling service.

Many clubs and service providers are nervous about providing clear female-only recreational sports and the associated changing facilities, and are either making everything mixed sex, or else providing someone they call “female only” but operating it on the basis of gender self-ID.

How did we get here?

In 2013 the UK Sports Councils Equality Group issued guidance telling sports bodies to permit trans-identifying males in women’s sport if they lowered their testosterone.

But this approach was not supported by scientific evidence. It has become increasingly clear that lowering testosterone does not remove male advantage.

In 2021 the group therefore issued new guidance, which said that permitting males into women’s categories could not be balanced with fairness for women or, in some sports, with women’s safety. But the damage was done. Almost without exception sports had adopted policies notionally requiring testosterone suppression, but in most cases relying on self-declaration. 

Worse was that many consulted trans lobby groups to create policies that made all participation and access to changing facilities also on the basis of self-declared “gender”, usually with the proviso that no-one should question someone’s claimed gender identity. These groups have successfully persuaded sports bodies that it is decent, reasonable and even necessary to accept that a trans-identifying person’s gender identity overrides their actual sex. There is a widespread belief that this is trans-identifying people’s legal right – many sports policies say so, incorrectly. This has resulted in women’s facilities and women-only sessions being open to any man who walks in. If he claims a trans identity then whoever challenges him will be seen as the one at fault. This is how the FA came to suspend a 17-year-old female player who questioned the presence of a man on the pitch.

The Sports Councils legal briefing rejects the idea that there is an obligation to accept people’s claimed sex without verification, or that their gender identity must be accepted as a substitute. It says:

“Very often, ‘human rights’ are cited by people in support of arguments, including, for example, respect for private life (article 8). This can tend to be presented as if the ‘human right’ is an absolute and automatically outweighs all other rights or interests. Such a position is not correct and is often unhelpful. Almost all human rights are not ‘absolute’. Most expressed human rights are, in law, either limited, or qualified, in some respect.

“Where a person wishes to participate in a sport, but refuses to disclose information as to their eligibility to participate (where they are otherwise obliged to), then they are not meeting the terms of participation and argument about human rights and privacy is unlikely to be correct.”

A tendency to compromise

Since the publication of the revised Sports Councils Equality Group guidance in 2021, persistent campaigning has led to some sports governing bodies restoring the protected female category. This is usually based on birth sex, though some exclude based on having gone through male puberty instead. When UK Athletics hesitated over whether GRC-holders were different, the Equality and Human Rights Commission made an unequivocal statement confirming that female-only based on birth sex was lawful – and not affected by the For Women Scotland case. 

But emotional blackmail is ever-present. In rugby and netball, for example, men with a transgender identity have declared their access to women’s teams to be “life-saving”. Rugby made the policy change nonetheless, on safety grounds. The threatened legal challenges did not materialise. In netball, UK policy-makers continue to centre men who claim to be women, despite World Netball having protected the women’s game.

Sports governing bodies that realise their transgender-inclusion policies were a mistake are often reluctant to rectify the error in full. Rather than recognise that a clear female category is legitimate and necessary for participation as well as competition, some policy reviews have approached it as an issue of competing demands between two groups, for which compromise would be the appropriate solution. The England and Wales Cricket Board has a two-tier policy, prioritising fairness only for the top two levels of women’s cricket, with male inclusion everywhere else. Scottish Swimming is one of several promoting both “female-only” competition and changing rooms on the basis of self-identified gender identity.

Even when policies are corrected, there is still the problem of making them stick. In UK athletics, men are still registering online as women, turning up and taking prizes. Most race organisers will amend this if it is reported, but it is an ongoing problem. Recreational running, led by Parkrun in the UK, claims that as its events are not races it is more inclusive to allow men to register as women, despite the fact that Parkrun issues results ranked by sex. In cycling, which some female cyclists report is extremely sexist, many race organisers are simply ignoring British Cycling’s amended policy, making up their own rules and allowing trans-identifying men to compete in women’s categories. 

What next?

For competitive sport, two important test cases are going through the courts, both in the game of pool. Cue sports are precision sports which offer separate women’s tournaments. In August 2023, three event organisers adopted a policy restricting women’s events to those born female, relying on s.195 to justify this legally. A trans-identifying male threatened to sue for discrimination, and two of the organising bodies quickly backed down. Those two are now being sued for discrimination by a group of female players, while the one organiser that stuck to its female-only policy is defending itself against the original legal challenge by the trans player. In both cases, the key issue is whether pool is “gender-affected”. Expert evidence will be used to make a ruling on this.

For non-competitive participation and changing rooms, other legal challenges or stronger guidance from the EHRC may be needed. Local authorities and other public bodies that fund sport and leisure facilities should pay attention to the public-sector equality duty and how their policies impact women and girls, including specific groups such as Muslim women. The Charity Commission could also take action where charities are involved. As long as these public bodies continue to support ambiguity, it will take brave claimants coming forward to challenge discriminatory policies before women and girls can be confident that facilities and activities advertised as “women-only” will in fact be male-free.

The problem of compliance is largely a social one. Encouraged by lobby groups, some people think it is deeply offensive, perhaps even unlawful, to recognise someone’s sex if they don’t want it recognised. The idea that it is kind to affirm a cross-sex identity has taken root, with no corresponding thought for the unkindness this inflicts on women and girls who lose their privacy and peace of mind. As long as this is the case, some men will continue to push the boundaries. The solution is both legal clarification and a reassertion of the social norms concerning single-sex provision. Clearer systems and standards for data recording will also help, avoiding confusion and moving the argument from individual cases to principles. We need to restore the understanding that the decent thing is to respect boundaries and fairness.

The problems in football

The Football Association, which governs English football, allows men who identify as women into women’s teams if they demonstrate that they have suppressed their testosterone. But suppressing testosterone has no impact on a man’s size and build, and very little effect on his speed or strength. The result is that women facing such players often find they cannot compete and are fearful of injury. At least 72 male players have been approved by the FA, each one affecting dozens of women in their league. 

The FA has reviewed its policy but not yet made any changes. Reports of problems are becoming more frequent. A year ago, one male player caused the temporary collapse of a whole women’s league in Yorkshire. Players who ask questions about fairness or safety may find themselves disciplined by the FA, as in the recent case of the 17-year-old who was suspended for doing so. This means no-one can challenge the right of a male player to be in a women’s match. 

That case has been raised in the House of Lords and has led to a demonstration at an England men’s match at Wembley. So far the FA’s response is simply to say it is a complex issue. The FA policy is in effect a case-by-case approach to individuals who apply for approval. The Sports Councils legal briefing makes clear that this is not how the sport exception in the Equality Act works.

The post The legal status of women-only sport appeared first on Sex Matters.

Send it to the chief executive and the chair, and ask for it to be shared with the board (anonymously if you prefer). You can usually find emails on the NGB’s website. 

1. Start by telling them what your involvement is with the sport. If you have a personal story, tell it.
2. If your sport is not on this list of those protecting the female category, ask why not. Those in charge need to know that people in their sport support keeping the female category for those born female, and that they should find other ways to ensure trans inclusion which are not at the expense of women and girls.
3. You might want to also mention changing rooms and toilets. Here’s some sample copy:
   
   

   I am concerned about the negative impact of your transgender inclusion policy on women and girls in our sport. This means that women and girls can no longer be confident of male-free play, or male-free changing rooms and toilets. Female events have become mixed-sex events. Women cannot be confident that a “women’s event” will not have a male participant.

4. They should already know about the Sports Councils Equality Group guidance, but you might want to link to that guidance and to the Fair Play For Women report, as in this example:
   
   

   The Sports Councils Equality Group conducted a comprehensive review of this issue, published in September 2021 on their website along with new guidance. They concluded that it is not possible to maintain fairness and safety in sport for females if trans-identifying males are also allowed into female categories.
   
   This is not a small problem. Each male competitor has an impact on many women, who may be deterred by the loss of privacy or because it is just not fun or not fair any more. This policy is not inclusive because it leads to the exclusion and self-exclusion of women and girls. There is extensive evidence of this in the report from Fair Play For Women. The report also shows how people feel they dare not object.

5. Tell them that the UK Sports Councils Equality Group’s legal briefing makes clear that female-only sport is lawful, and send them a copy of the PDF.
6. Remind them of the UK Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, given on 16th April 2025, which ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, and that operating single-sex sports categories on that basis is the lawful option.
7. If you have experience of not feeling able to speak out, or of getting a bad reaction from doing so, tell them.
8. You might want to quote an MP, such as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, saying, “I think most have come to the conclusion that – although they want to be as inclusive as possible – biology does matter when it comes to sport.”
9. Finish with a clear request – here’s an example:
    

   The largest sports by participation levels – athletics, swimming, cycling – have all protected the female category. Please can you tell me how the board is responding to this guidance and to the Supreme Court judgment?

When you’ve sent your email, please forward it to us at TellUs@sex-matters.org.

If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, or any answer at all, email them again. If you get a reply worth sharing, please forward it to TellUs@sex-matters.org

The post Help us to protect women’s sport appeared first on Sex Matters.

This is not inclusion. This is female exclusion. The ECB has known for some time that young female players are being dropped for their own safety, or withdrawn by their parents, when their team is facing an opposing women’s team that includes an adult male who has self-identified as a woman. Coaches and parents have been making their concerns known to the ECB for the past 18 months. A year ago the International Cricket Council (ICC) announced that its policy will now restrict women’s teams to those born female. Still the ECB did not act.

The ECB announced its revised policy last week. It seems to have done so reluctantly, not because this is the fair, safe option but because it has been forced to align the top end of cricket with ICC policy. 

The new policy offers a compromise that works for no-one. Women and girls will still face male players when they should not. Those male trans-identifying players will not be able to progress, because the top tier of the women’s game is restricted to those born female. This creates the novel situation of a glass ceiling for teenage boys in particular. They look talented when playing with girls, but there is no pathway onwards. If they switch to the men’s game, where they always should have been, they may be disappointed that they’re not stars after all. So they will stick around, in women’s cricket, with their male advantage intact. 

The Sports Councils Equality Group stated unequivocally in its revised transgender guidance, published in 2021, that the inclusion of males in the women’s category cannot be “balanced” with fairness, nor in some sports safety, if the sport is “gender-affected”, as cricket is. The range of solutions offered by the guidance did not include allowing male players into the women’s category without restriction, as the ECB was doing. 

Instead of recognising that its self-ID policy had to go, the ECB has split its own sport. Having given away the women’s game to men who say they are women, the ECB is unwilling to give it back to women. Its change may have been prompted by the ICC but other sports are also approaching their policy review as a negotiation, in which they listen to both sides and choose some middle ground. 

This is not how sport policy should be made. Some people would like to allow doping but the rule is black and white: no doping, for anyone. The expectation is that people will comply with this rule despite the lack of facilities to ensure compliance at amateur levels. Similarly with age restrictions: they are non-negotiable. But here we have safety and fairness for women and girls pitted against affirming the beliefs of some men that they are women. The ECB prefers to put women and girls at risk rather than adopt a policy that might hurt a few men’s feelings.

The post Cricket, where male feelings come first appeared first on Sex Matters.

Some governing bodies tell us there is no problem. But we know it is difficult to speak up, because of the climate of fear and intimidation reported by the Sports Councils Equality Group.

Tell us, in confidence, if you’ve seen male players in women’s and girls’ sport in the UK. Tell us how it affected you, or the girls and women you know. We will tell sports governing bodies that they have a problem, without revealing details that might identify anyone. (See our privacy policy.)

The post Tell us how male inclusion in women’s sport has affected you appeared first on Sex Matters.

There is an intrinsic conflict between treating people as the opposite sex to what they are in reality, and protecting children and vulnerable adults. Indeed, there is a conflict between this and protecting everyone’s privacy, dignity and safety. You’d expect this conflict to be recognised by the Child Protection in Sport Unit run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). 

The Child Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) was set up in 2001 in response to a series of child-abuse scandals. Its stated purpose is: 

“to help improve safeguarding and child protection practices within sport organisations, to ensure all children and young people are safe while participating in sport and physical activity at all levels.”

It is part of the NSPCC and is funded by Sport England, Sport Northern Ireland, Sport Wales, UK Sport and the Football Association. 

Sex matters in safeguarding

A CPSU briefing document dated May 2022 called Safe use of changing facilities and toilets seeks to support clubs and organisations to develop a safe-use policy for changing facilities. It recognises the risk inherent in situations where children are removing their clothes in a space shared with adults, and the need to protect children’s privacy. But it uses the word “gender” where it means sex. For example: 

“It’s considered good practice to ensure that children are supervised by staff or volunteers of the same gender while changing.”

This leads it into confusion and ignoring risks. The NSPCC is the only UK children’s charity with statutory powers, meaning that its staff have “authorised person status” in law, like social workers and police officers, to remove children if they deem them to be at risk of harm.

So the NSPCC has statutory powers. And the CPSU is funded by public money. But its guidance is wrong.

The section headed “Transgender and non-binary children” says:

“Using gendered changing facilities can be a source of stress for transgender and non-binary children. Sport and activity providers should consider how to support these young people to use the changing rooms that they feel comfortable with. Your policies should reflect that decisions need to be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration all children’s safety.”

This implies that children may choose the facilities provided for the other sex if that matches their claimed gender identity.

The guidance would lead to a boy being allowed to change with girls (and sometimes women) or a girl to change with boys (and sometimes men) in a changing room that is designated “single sex”, and being supervised by staff or volunteers of the opposite sex. 

The wording is drawn from the NSPCC’s 2024 schools briefing Safeguarding considerations for changing rooms. This states that: 

“Mixed gender changing areas are less appropriate as children get older.”

In fact it is mixed-sex changing areas that are less appropriate. There is nothing inappropriate about a girl who identifies as “non-binary” or “transmasc”, or as a “trans boy”, changing with other girls. The NSPCC suggests that schools and sports organisations should consider this a “mixed gender” situation, when in fact it remains single sex. 

Ignoring sex may lead to discrimination

Remembering what sex children are is crucial to safeguarding. Also, telling a gender non-conforming girl that she cannot use the girls’ changing rooms, or a gender non-conforming boy that he cannot use the boys’ changing rooms, would be gender-reassignment discrimination under the Equality Act.

Under the Equality Act, schools and sports associations need to make sure that pupils who have or may be perceived to have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”, or the children of transgender parents, are not singled out for different and less favourable treatment from that given to other pupils. 

They are not required to let such children use opposite-sex facilities. A sound grasp of safeguarding would make clear why this is not appropriate.

The CPSU’s guidance on safeguarding LGBTQ+ children and young people, updated in April 2024, says:

“You should consider how you can support transgender and non-binary children and young people to wear the clothes (e.g uniform or sports kit) and use the toilets and changing rooms that they feel comfortable with. Your policies should reflect that decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all children’s safety.”

There is no way to support a child to use opposite-sex provision without putting either that child or children of the other sex at risk. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance on the provision of single-sex and separate-sex services makes clear that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not entitle someone to use opposite-sex facilities. Nowhere does it suggest that people should be supported to use the changing rooms they feel comfortable with or that a case-by-case approach should be taken. On the contrary, it suggests that service providers should tell all users:

“They may use either the toilet for their biological sex or to use the gender neutral toilet if they feel more comfortable doing so.”

Promoting gender confusion

The CPSU offers organisations a list of “key things to remember” that includes:

• promote LGBTQ+ related events and campaigns to demonstrate openly that your club or activity has inclusive values
• do not automatically assume a person’s sexual orientation or gender
• promote LGBTQ+ specialist services to everyone in your sport or activity.

This is on a webpage about protecting children. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not relevant. What is relevant is whether a child is a boy or a girl. Promoting LGBTQ+ related events is not appropriate in children’s sport. Viewed through a safeguarding lens, raising issues of sexual orientation may well be inappropriate.

Ignoring key questions

Both the guidance for sports organisations and the guidance for schools say that where possible, the adults who are supervising children getting changed “should be of the same gender as them”. This should say “the same sex”. 

By using the term “gender”, the guidance avoids the question of whether it is appropriate for adult staff and volunteers who identify as transgender to be treated as the opposite sex for the purpose of supervising changing rooms. 

An assessment based on reality and on safeguarding principles would say they should not. A man who identifies as a woman remains the opposite sex to a group of female students. It is inappropriate to coerce, mislead or force girls who are changing to be supervised by a male teacher and to pretend that he is female. A safeguarding assessment would also need to consider that many men who identify as women are demonstrating a sexual paraphilia. 

Failing to meet its own standards

The CPSU sets out ten standards for safeguarding and protecting children in sport, which it says “provide a framework for all those involved in sport to help them create a safe sporting environment for children and young people and protect them from harm”. 

Five years ago, this analysis of how gender-identity policies in sports were counter to child safeguarding was shared with Sport England. It shows how some national governing bodies of sport have adopted policies which are at odds with the CPSU standards. This remains true in 2024. For example, both the Lawn Tennis Association and the Royal Yachting Association insist that people claiming a transgender identity should have access to the changing rooms of their choice. This is less surprising when you see that the CPSU itself is offering guidance which is not in line with the law.

These policies are headlined as being about safety, but they gloss over key risks by confusing the concepts of sex and “gender”, encouraging children to use opposite-sex facilities, avoiding the question of how to address adults who wish to use or supervise opposite-sex facilities and ignoring the paraphilic aspects of cross-dressing. 

The guidance actively encourages organisations to put children in situations of potential risk and harm, and to undermine record-keeping. This is the opposite of safeguarding. 

As reported in The Telegraph, we have written to the Department for Education urging it to force the NSPCC to alter its stance.

It’s time to make the Equality Act clear

The previous UK government had asked for the public to submit examples of bad guidance on provision of single-sex spaces and services. Sports bodies were among those reported. It is not known whether the new Labour government will take this work forward. 

Sex Matters continues to call for the Equality Act to be made clear, so that the concept of sex is unambiguously recognised in law, and the rights of people with alternative gender identities (with or without a gender-recognition certificate) do not override other people’s privacy, dignity and safety, or the need for clear rules and policies.

Read more about the impact of gender identity in sport and why sex matters.

The post When child safeguarding meets gender ideology in sport, children are the losers appeared first on Sex Matters.

The furore surrounding women’s boxing at the Olympics should be a warning to every international federation. International Olympic Committee media briefings were dominated by questions about eligibility for boxing in the women’s category. Both the IOC spokesman and the IOC president declared, in effect, that no one really knew what a woman was. 

But some sports do know. Athletics, aquatics, cycling and weightlifting have all had their Khelif moment, and acted to restore protections for their female category. Other sports should act now, rather than waiting until they are forced into a response by crisis and public humiliation.

Here are the crucial events that triggered change, sport by sport. 

Athletics: Caster Semenya and the Rio 2016 women’s 800m podium

The 2016 Rio Olympics women’s 800m podium consisted of three male athletes, all with 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), a rare disorder of sex development (DSD) that only affects male people. Caster Semenya of South Africa took gold; Francine Niyonsaba of Burundi took silver; and Margaret Nayareira Wambui of Kenya took bronze. Semenya had already won two world championships and claimed gold in London 2012. The IAAF, now World Athletics, adopted a policy requiring male DSD athletes to suppress their testosterone for a range of events (400m to 1500m) where analysis had shown male athletes with DSDs had taken women’s medals. 

World Athletics has so far prevailed in legal challenges brought by Semenya and Athletics South Africa. The Court of Arbitration for Sport said that the regulations were proportionate to maintain fairness for women since:

“Athletes with 5-ARD athletes are ‘biologically… the same in every relevant respect as male athletes without DSDs’.”

The 2021 Tokyo Olympics 200m silver medal was won by Christine Mboma of Namibia, who also has a male DSD. Mboma had moved from the 400m to the 200m as it was outside the restricted events. World Athletics extended the restriction to all events in March 2023. 

At the same time, World Athletics announced that the female category would be only for competitors born female. Trans-identifying males would not be permitted at all. Previously, they had been allowed to compete as women with testosterone suppression.

In response to questions from UK Athletics, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Committee issued a statement that it is lawful to exclude all males, including those with a gender-recognition certificate, from female sport. UK Athletics announced that it was adopting the World Athletics policy with immediate effect. However, UK Athletics has still not issued a detailed policy to guide how this should work in practice in the UK, and trans-identifying males continue to enter and compete in the women’s category in UK athletics events, in many cases facing no sanction from event organisers who are routinely allowing males in women’s races.

Weightlifting: Laurel Hubbard at the Tokyo Games, 2021

In 2017 trans-identifying male Laurel Hubbard of New Zealand won the women’s Masters world championship, an event for women over 35, and set a new heavyweight world record for women in his age group of 131 for Snatch and 149 for Clean and Jerk. This compared to just 68 for Snatch and 90 for Clean and Jerk from the woman who placed second at the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) Masters. 

Laurel Hubbard took two gold medals at the 2019 Pacific Games.

In the Tokyo Olympics 2020, aged 43, Hubbard competed in the women’s category despite being 20 years older than the average female weightlifting Olympian. Although Hubbard did not win an Olympic medal, there was much press interest and controversy. In August 2023 the IWF announced a move to sex-based categories of male and female plus an “open gender” category. The female category excludes anyone who has gone through male puberty.

Swimming: Lia Thomas at the NCAAs, 2022

Trans-identifying male swimmer Lia Thomas won the 2022 women’s 500 yard NCAA championships.

In February 2022, Lia Thomas set new records in women’s championships at the Ivy League Championships and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship in the USA, having previously been ranked 65th in the same men’s event. This sudden dominance and Thomas’s potential to win Olympic selection sparked outrage. In June 2022 FINA, also known as World Aquatics, amended its policy so that anyone who had gone through male puberty would be ineligible to compete in the female category. In April 2023 Swim England, Scottish Swimming and Swim Wales adopted a sex-based policy for all licensed competitions. Thomas attempted to challenge World Aquatics policy in order to be able to compete in the female category, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled in June 2024 that Thomas was ineligible to compete at elite level.

Cycling: Emily Bridges seeking national selection, 2022

Emily Bridges is second from the left in the podium photo. This was a good example of trans inclusion in the correct sex category – a trans-identifying male included in male competition. 

Emily, formerly Zach, Bridges had set a national junior men’s record over 25 miles before identifying as trans and then competing in the female category. In March 2022, Bridges was seeking qualification to compete in the Welsh women’s cycling team at the Commonwealth Games. This was blocked after opposition from female athletes. In April 2022 British Cycling withdrew its transgender policy, which required a year’s testosterone suppression. After it consulted with the international body, Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), both extended the required period of testosterone suppression to two years at a lower level, rendering Bridges ineligible. In May 2023 British Cycling adopted female and open categories for competitions from the end of 2023. In July 2023 the UCI also adopted female and open categories.

Shore angling: boycott by England women, 2023

In 2018, trans-identifying male Becky Lee Birtwhistle Hodges was included in the England ladies sea shore angling team. In 2022 Hodges went as a team manager as a compromise, but sought team inclusion again the following year. In June 2023, half of the England ladies team quit in protest, meaning they could not defend their gold medal in the Home Nations Championships. By November 2023 the world federation, FIPS-M, and England’s Angling Trust had both amended their policies to be sex-based, preserving fairness and inclusion for females in a protected category alongside an open, universal category.

Cricket: Australian male plays for Canada women, 2023

Danielle McGahey was selected to play for the Canadian women’s team in an international T20 series. Having grown up playing men’s cricket in Australia, McGahey declared as transgender in 2020. He had already played four friendlies for Canada in 2022. The International Cricket Council’s policy at the time was twelve months of testosterone suppression. In November 2023 the ICC announced a new policy which made McGahey ineligible for the women’s game. No one who has been through any part of male puberty is eligible for a women’s team.

Golf: Hailey Davidson tournament win, 2024

In January 2024, trans-identifying male Hailey Davidson won the NXXT Women’s Classic golf tournament. Davidson came close to qualifying for the US Women’s Open. 

In February 2024, the Arizona-based Cactus Tour reinstated a “female at birth” eligibility for the female category. In March 2024, NXXT announced a change to its policy such that only golfers who are “biological female at birth” will be permitted to compete in the female category. This, it said, would “maintain the integrity of women’s professional golf and ensure fair competition”. 

Other golf federations have not adopted this policy, and Davidson is now vying for a place in the women’s professional golf tour.

A few sports acted before being pushed

In 2020, World Rugby hosted a two-day workshop to air and debate the issues around transgender inclusion. The outcome was a sex-based policy for full-contact rugby, because of safety concerns. In 2022 the UK rugby federations adopted the same policy.

In 2023, the International Cricket Council restricted women’s teams to those who had not been through any part of male puberty. In 2024, World Netball and World Sailing adopted similar policies. None of the UK governing bodies for these sports has followed suit.

The next crisis: sprinting at the Paralympics, Paris 2024

Trans-identifying male Valentina Petrillo has qualified to compete against visually impaired women in the 2024 Paralympics.

World Para Athletics operates separately from World Athletics. In his 30s Petrillo won Italian national sprint titles, but was not an international runner. At 50, Petrillo is far behind the male Paralympics Minimum Entry Standard running times, but is able to meet the female times. Even before the games begin, the credibility of the Paralympics is in question over the fairness of allowing a middle-aged trans-identifying male to compete against and possibly beat visually impaired young women.

“Inclusion”: attractive in theory, ugly in practice

What happened in the boxing ring in Paris was the IOC’s inclusive policy in action. It was not a mistake or even an unfortunate side effect; it was how the policy was meant to work. Not until a specific male athlete gains access to the female category does the seemingly attractive notion of “inclusion” collide with the stark reality of unfair male advantage. Sports federations adopt “inclusive” rules that seem fine to them until the effects play out in public, at which point it becomes clear that inclusion for trans-identifying males in the women’s category means unfairness and exclusion for female athletes.

This unfairness and exclusions is happening in almost all sports with such policies, at all levels, as a report by Fair Play For Women published in January showed. If other sports federations want to avoid the same public humiliation followed by a scramble to revise “inclusive” policies, they should act now to restore fairness for women. 

What went wrong in Olympic boxing?

Boxing was the one sport which never moved away from a protected female category. Its amateur and professional governing bodies had all maintained sex-based competition. But the International Boxing Federation (IBA) lost its recognition by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over issues of governance and financial irregularities. As a result, the boxing tournaments at the Tokyo Games in 2021 and the Paris Games in 2024 were run by the IOC. Its position is that there should be “no presumed advantage” just because someone has a DSD or a transgender identity. It opposes sex screening, which it calls intrusive and humiliating. Self-declaration of sex is sufficient for access to the female category. 

By this logic there should be no sex categories in sport, especially as IOC President Thomas Bach has claimed that there is no scientific consensus on how to identify a man or a woman. Nonetheless he insisted that the two boxers at the centre of the row are definitely women.

Critics have noted that weight categories are meticulously verified but sex categories are not. Many countries allow people to change the gender marker on their passports, so the IOC policy in effect permits males in female categories at will. 

Sex-based does not mean “anti-trans”

Amid the backlash against Lia Thomas in the NCAAs in 2022, another trans-identifying swimmer competed in women’s races with no complaints from anyone. This was Iszac Henig, a trans-identifying female who had had a mastectomy but had not taken testosterone.

Hergie Bacyadan of the Philippines, a trans-identifying female, competed in women’s boxing in the Paris 2024 Olympics without controversy. Bacyadan called for boxers who failed gender eligibility tests, like Khelif and Lin, to be excluded from the female category. 

There were no objections to the inclusion of either Bacyadan or Henig, since they are female and are not using testosterone.

The post Sporting crises foretold appeared first on Sex Matters.

United Kingdom – female category based on sex at birth

• American football
• Archery
• Badminton (England only)
• Basketball (England only)
• Canoeing and kayaking
• Cricket (England and Wales)
• Cycling
• Darts
• Fencing
• Football (England and Scotland)
• Hockey (England and Scotland)
• Ice-hockey
• Judo
• Karate (British but not English)
• Modern pentathlon
• Netball (England)
• Orienteering
• Pickleball (England)
• Pool
• Rowing
• Rugby League and Rugby Union
• Sea-shore angling
• Snooker and billiards (England only)
• Swimming
• Triathlon
• Volleyball (England only)
• Waterski and wakeboard
• Weightlifting
• Wheelchair basketball
• Wrestling

United Kingdom – female category based on excluding any experience  of male puberty

• This is common in international policies. A few sports in the UK adopted this as an initial step, then moved to sex at birth (e.g. British Judo).

Note that fairness for all girls requires a policy based on sex at birth, since sex differences are apparent before puberty.

United Kingdom – female category at some levels only

• Croquet – all events publicised in Croquet England’s Fixtures Calendar are based on sex at birth.
• Golf – Scratch golf tournaments are restricted to female at birth or no male puberty. All handicap competition is self-ID – anyone can register as female and obtain a handicap as “female”.
• Squash (England) – “regulated” competition only; most club, school and university squash to be on the basis of self-declared “gender”.
• Table tennis (England) – “regulated” competition at a national-ranked level only; all other competition to be on the basis of identity.
• Tennis – “specified” competition only; discretion for clubs to adopt the same rule for club competitions, but strong push from the LTA for clubs to be “trans inclusive” – that is, let male players compete in and win women’s club events.
• Yachting/ sailing – competitions organised by the RYA will follow World Sailing’s policy, but the RYA guidance recognises that “clubs and classes organise the majority of racing in the UK” and, in allowing them to set their own eligibility criteria, encourages them not to “limit exclusion”.

At world level

In March 2026, following reports that a working group led by the chief medical officer had recognised that male advantage is irreversible, the International Olympic Committee announced its “Policy on the Protection of the Female (Women’s) Category in Olympic Sport”. The title is a significant shift away from past guidelines and position statements about transgender inclusion. A set of FAQs about the policy, the development process, the science and the implementation followed in April 2026.

• Athletics (World Athletics): “any part of male puberty either beyond Tanner Stage 2 or after age 12” – March 2023
• Boxing: World Boxing confirmed its previous position in 2023: sex at birth. The International Boxing Association is also sex-based but is no longer recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which took over the running of boxing at the Tokyo 2020 and Paris 2024 Olympics. World Boxing is now vying to replace the IBA for IOC recognition, so that it can run the boxing events at the next Olympic Games. It is not clear whether it would retain biological sex as the basis of competition or adopt the IOC policy of accepting passports as sufficient proof of eligibility. In many countries the sex marker on a passport can be changed on request or with a letter from a doctor (In the UK, a GP’s letter is enough.)
• Cricket (International Cricket Council): “any part of male puberty” – November 2023
• Cycling (Union Cycliste Internationale): “any part of male puberty either beyond Tanner Stage 2 or after age 12” – July 2023
• Darts – April 2026
• Fencing (FIE) – December 2025 – sex at birth
• Golf: “any part of male puberty either beyond Tanner Stage 2 or after age 12” – December 2024
• Netball (World Netball): recorded as female at birth – April 2024
• Rowing: the word “gender” is replaced by “sex”, only those female at birth are eligible – March 2025
• Rugby union (World Rugby): no male puberty or effects of testosterone – October 2020
• Rugby league (International Rugby League): female at birth – July 2022
• Sailing (World Sailing): no-one who has experienced male puberty from Tanner stage 2 – May 2024
• Swimming and diving (World Aquatics): “any part of male puberty from Tanner stage 2” – 2022
• Triathlon (World Triathlon): a four-year puberty suppression requirement, with conditions including participation in academic research for the final three years – January 2025
• Weightlifting (International Weightlifting Federation): no-one who has experienced male puberty – August 2023

The state of play in other sports

Athletics: UK Athletics announced an intention to adopt Open and Female categories in March 2023, following the World Athletics position, but has not written a policy. Many male runners continue to register as women and compete in races athough this is against the stated policy of UK Athletics. The board of UK Athletics was due to review and progress its policy in March 2025.

Football: FIFA is still “reviewing” current policy. FIFA policy is from 2011 and refers to men’s and women’s football, without sex definitions (likely they did not anticipate these would be needed).

In the UK, gymnastics and snowsport state that they are reviewing.

In England, boxing and kendo were always sex-based. British Judo changed in December 2023. All the other combat sports have still to sort this out.

UK vs international policies

Some UK governing bodies have said they must follow their world body. Others have followed in the past but now set a different policy on this issue. This applies in both directions. For example:

• World Netball, World Sailing, and the International Cricket Council protected the female category but UK bodies did not follow for some time. Some, like Football Association Wales, and cricket in Scotland, have still not.
• Several UK and England bodies have moved ahead of their international federations to restore fairness for females, including the British American Football Association, Badminton England, British Judo, British Rowing, British Triathlon and Volleyball England. 
• The UK’s rugby authorities took almost two years to follow the policy adopted by World Rugby based on evidence about the increased injury risk for women facing male players. 

History of policy changes

For a full history of policy changes, see our Sports timeline

Here’s how facing a crisis pushed the biggest sports to act.

The post Sports policies for competition appeared first on Sex Matters.