Should women be awarded medals if they lost to Transwomen in UK sport since 2010?

Ah thank you, this is what I was asking- sorry if I wasn’t clear. So where a sporting competition has separate categories for men and women only biological women can enter the women’s competition otherwise it needs to be open so as not to discriminate against men or undermine the reason for having separate categories

Not necessarily. I don't think there is anything in this ruling that forces organisations to have segregated facilities for men and women or sports to have separate competitions for men and women. The ruling is that if there are separate competitions, facilities or services for women, they are restricted to women-women and not trans-women. But the ruling doesn't mean there has to be provision provided for both sexes separately unless there is some other requirement or overwhelming need. A rape crisis centre could legitimately divide their services to keep female victims away from male victims. Public services like the NHS have their own obligations.

The point is where provision is made for women, transwomen are now to be excluded. It doesn't mean if no separate provision for women is made, it needs to be. Sports would usually fall under this category. There are plenty of examples of women competing against men in sports such as horse racing, motorsport, darts, snooker, poker or bowling. There's no obligation for this to end.

But take the F1 Academy series as an example. Let's assume they adopt this ruling (they're probably not though I imagine they're not a British organisation). The series already existed as a women-only series, using Formula 4 cars. The ruling now is that transwomen can't compete. It doesn't mean there now have to be all-female series equivalent to F3, F2 and F1.

For those who haven't seen it, this is the relevant guidance in the EQA 2010 -

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/14/5

And it's also not just about whether someone won. It's about the safety of participants, specifically women.

Anyone trotting out the 'it was only a few', how many is acceptable? And how many women and girls have missed out, not just on podiums but opportunities, scholarships etc?

And it wasn't just a few - www.shewon.org

(Edited to correct link address)

Again I can’t see how as that would be D or ID sex discrimination too.

But as this thread shows, often things are not made compliant with the law until they’re dragged kicking and screaming! It’s particularly difficult for non profit bodies without access to good legal advice but as we have seen, even the NHS and major enterprises who could get good legal advice have allowed themselves to be persuaded by the likes of Stonewall. Disappointing. And a failure on the part of the regulators.

I’m interested to know if such a league could continue to penalise female players who refused to play against male people, which is what happens now.

Can I just clarify something for those with knowledge on this, going forward sporting events will either need to be split male and female based on biological sex because presumably the event organisers are taking advantage of the rule in the equalities act that states the default of mixed sex provision can be altered where it is proportionate eg on grounds of protecting women’s safety, dignity etc, otherwise men could claim discrimination for not being allowed in the womens group,

So now sporting events will need to be mixed sex or split based on biological sex.

Sorry if I’ve got some of the terms/laws confused - just trying to get this point straight in my own mind and making sure I understand the implications for organising anything.

Thank you

Bring it on. The sooner there is absolute clarity, the better.

I agree that court cases will sort this out.

I am looking forward to it. Because at the moment, there seems an awful lot of interpretations of the ruling about the EA from the very groups of people who were misinterpreting it in the first place.

I am spending the weekend reading the interpretations of the ruling from the people who had the correct interpretation of the EA in the first place. If the word 'female' and 'woman' is used for a category, does it need a judgement by a court in the UK to clarify whether or not there is still the ability to actively 'include' those who are male.

Either way, sports would fall under the EA2010 and in light of the ruling, female athletes should be again applying pressure to sporting organisations to ensure that the EA2010 exceptions are applied.

At all levels of sport. If a sporting organisation wishes to have mixed sex sports, that is their choice. If they wish to have inclusive events, that is their choice. But female athletes at grass roots level still should have access to single sex sports events if that is what they want to compete in.

How many decades did those take... Also, not a smooth process either.

The bodies that made the decisions to make these women compete against trans people should also not only reinstate medals, but compensate these women for loss of sponsorship, sporting grants, lost prize money etc.

But we wouldn’t be going against the rules of the time! That’s the whole point! Jeez.

Alan Turning's conviction for gross indecency was overturned. He was convicted for gay sex. So has other such convictions. The execution verdicts on men shot for cowardice, because they were shell shocked, were overturned. Likewise awards have been removed, along with statues and place names. We go against the rules of the time, frequently.

They could just make everything open, yes.

However I take the view that a sports group that declined to invoke the single-sex exemption going forward would be vulnerable to a challenge of at least indirect if not direct sex discrimination, given that they are essentially condemning women to never ever winning and even exposing them to an increased risk of physical injury, to name but two potential detriments, by doing so.

Of course they’d need to go to court. That goes without saying. It’s not magic!

But statements are being made on this thread to the effect that rules that allowed trans ID males to compete in the female category were not illegal and that just isn’t true. IF the category was labelled as female/women.

Let's see what happens if a legal challenge is brought then.

Then those cases would need to be argued in the courts.

Where judges could/ could not decide if it applies.

What the ruling is likely to mean is that if a group says they wish to restrict participation to women only - specifically biological women - they would not be breaking any rules under the Equality Act 2010. It does not mean that all groups, especially amateur/ non-elite level have to do that.

To clarify, given that the ruling has merely clarified the law, a challenge in the terms that I’ve outlined wouldn’t have been excluded prior to the ruling either… had someone had the appetite for it, which understandably might not have been the case given the climate. But obviously the ruling would make it much simpler to draft!

@Willandra

Of course they should be awarded the medals they were cheated out of. Biological men should have never been allowed to compete against women. Too many male advantages. So cheating.

If a person is to be found to have gained advantages by taking drugs then medal is removed. I see this no differently, the males cheating to win by saying they are women.

I'm not up to date with rules from individual sports, but, if a woman was forced to compete against a male then surely she can now claim sex discrimination.

To prove that it wasn't the sporting body would have to find a male comparitor.

But why would female sport NOT have been governed by the EA? As I said unless it was labelled as mixed sex or open, allowing any males in was a misrepresentation and indirect - at least, if not direct - sex discrimination. Subject to time limits etc why wouldn’t that in principle be vulnerable to a legal challenge on behalf of any woman who had entered based on that incorrect descriptor now?

If they have a female category then they should make it fair competition. Their collection of timings and publishing of records for categories is discordant with their declaration that they are not a competitive sport.

It could be argued that female sport falls under the EA2010 though.

Female sport was set up to allow female athletes to have the same opportunity to fair competition. Therefore, why would it not be using the EA?

This. So much this. People are cherry picking the aspects of a ruling they want to be true and wildly applying them incorrectly everywhere.

That is not how our legislative process works, that is not how our judiciary works.

I strongly suspect most people have not read the (88 page) ruling, or even the summary conclusions. Or even the many, many articles analysing what this could/ could not mean in the British media right now.