The English Cricket Board sells out women's cricket

I wonder whether the recent appointment of one Lord as a Director of Middlesex CC had anything to do with it. I don't know whether local clubs have influence at the ECB level or not, being a lowly female wot didn't play crikkit at skool.

In our current policy, the eligibility of players is based on one’s own self-identified gender, with no medical requirement.

For all these policies, they really need to spell out what a 'self-identified gender' is, and explain why a self identified gender overrules biological fact. Then the absurd sexism of the whole ideology will be obvious.

Well that's disappointing. Why bother reviewing it if you're going to ignore all the scientific evidence of unfair advantage and warnings of the damage to women's cricket (before your elite league even bloody begins).

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ecb-to-review-rules-on-transgender-cricketers-nl0f75w86

Thanks for that link- will definitely do the survey- I used to play for my local team before I had my little ones and there is no way we could have played with or against men- for a start very few of us had played at school or uni so very much beginners.
I’ll show it to my mum too- she did play cricket at school but was peak transed before me when a transwoman tried to play off the women’s tees at her golf course!

In addition to emailing your views to the ECB, they have a survey about women's cricket.
ecb.tell-us-what-you-think.com/s3/Cricket-Playing-Survey-2019-Network.

There's only one free text box and they talk repeatedly about single gender teams - so you may wish to raise it there.

It reads as though it was dictated by Stonewall

I have no doubt that this is solely the work of trans lobbyists, and the people in the ECB who agreed it either have no proper understanding of physical bodies or cricket.

(being physically male doesn’t always mean a person is a boy / man). says the ECB.

OK, if you say so, ECB.

So what does being physically male mean for the rules of cricket? Is the boundary set differently to allow for an aesthetic preference (ie liking pink and sparkly and wearing frocks means that the boundary should be closer) or is it to allow for the ability of physically male people (you know, men) to hit the ball further and harder than physically female people?

"It reads as though it was dictated by Stonewall"

I agree. In fact the wording sounds familiar to that in the guidance of the Football Association - clearly they are all from one source.

The FAQ makes me angrier than the policy. I'm a scientist and it's as though we have left all rational thought behind.

OK, I've written. See what I get back.

(being physically male doesn’t always mean a person is a boy / man). says the ECB.

And this is an organisation that runs the country's national summer sport. Truly, women's sport is fucked.

I really think complaints with a copy of this FAQ document should go to all the Sky Sports commentators, as Sky is the TV channel that features both men's and women's crickets in all its formats and the commentators are all ex internationals.

I am having a quiet giggle imagining what Ian Botham's reaction might be.

Struggling to define what the different gender expressions are between this female cricketer and this male cricketer.

Maybe the ECB can fill us in.

One's got a hard hat on. Maybe that is the difference.

Any organisation that uses "assigned at birth" can never be taken seriously. They are drowning in kool aid.

"Observed" is the word you are struggling for ECB.

13 ...The ICC uses a “medical” model for governing eligibility in contrast to the “social” model used by the ECB in this Policy.

Social transition means changing the social and cultural cues you use to show your gender to the world (your gender expression)

Taking a social approach means that respect and inclusion does not depend on whether someone is able to have (or wants to have) any medical intervention.

Not all trans people can, or wish to, transition medically, and taking a social approach means that all trans people can be included and welcomed to play cricket.

A social model is the core basis for inclusion under the Equality Act 2010.

From here: [[https://platform-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/ecb/document/2019/05/08/bb5eea87-6e2a-4fb5-bec5-c90420a73391/FAQs-for-ECB-Policy-on-Trans-People-Playing-Cricket.pdf ECB Policy on Trans People Playing Cricket -
Frequently Asked Questions]]

'Gender expression' is apparently more important than biology in the world of cricket.

Thanks, JellySlice. This is the link to that jpg
www.ecb.co.uk/governance/regulations/non-first-class-regulations
This, in turn, links to the policy on trans people playing cricket. But looking at the link, it's dated 2019/04/26.

So was it changed on 26 April this year? Was there any consultation?

This policy has been in place since at least 2016.
Do we know this for sure?

All this could have been prevented if they just said no. No, you can't compete with women as you are male, sorry if it makes you sad.

This! Why can't they just say this?

No, you can't use the ladies toilets, use the ladies changing rooms, be put in a women's prison, compete in women's sports, use a women's refuge, take this award that is meant for women. Because you are male. No.

Sorry. If. It. Makes. You. Sad.

I think that if ECB had set out to get as many people to sue them as possible, they could not have done a better job.

They'll have religious women suing them

They'll have women who lost places to men in female teams suing them

They'll have women injured by men suing them

They'll have non-binaries suing them

They'll have gender fluid people suing them

They'll have men who claim to be elite women suing them (because this whole 'case by case for elite female competition' basis is a legal nightmare)

Good luck, fellas. Wonder who the ECB's legal insurers are.

That policy is all over the place.

An inevitable consequence of basing a policy on an ideology that makes no sense.

The policy capture of the sporting bodies has been very thorough. I acknowledge with begrudging respect how effective their influencing and lobbying has been. But it will be this overreach which starts to halt the whole thing.

This policy has been in place since at least 2016.
Do we know this for sure? Is it true? I just find it so difficult to believe. But then, I thought the Oz cricket trans policy was fake news...