The English Cricket Board sells out women's cricket

Again from Fair Play fairplayforwomen.com/campaigns/sports-campaign/

EXTRACT:

Here in the UK many sports clubs now allow males to compete as female if they can show a doctor’s note confirming that they have lowered testosterone into the ‘female range’. Even the Olympic guidelines now state that males who identity as women should be eligible for female competition if their testosterone is

So a biological woman cannot play in the women's team but a biological man can. Aye, alright.

This is the peerage and Masons all over again. Men (however they identify) able to do what they want, women (however they identify) told what to do by men.

Not even an attempt to make it even.

I don't think they listened properly in their Stonewall training.
Either they have mixed up the terms in a very transphobic way, or transgender people have to compete according to their sex not gender id. And if anyone actually followed the nb clause it would be transphobic discrimination of the worst kind (only against females though) and is just the kind of thing people are thinking of when they argue for legal protections for nb people.
That policy is all over the place.

Would be nice, though. Then the regulations would make complete sense and would be compassionate to trans people.

Just imagine:

11.1 any trans person may compete in any mixed gender competition, league or match in their affirmed gender or preferred gender identity and should be accepted as the gender they present or in their preferred gender identity;

11.2 a MALE-BODIED trans person may compete in any open competition, league or match and should be accepted in the gender in which they present, but may not compete in any female only competition, league or match;

11.3 a FEMALE-BODIED trans person may compete in any open competition, league or match or any female only competition, league or match and should be accepted in the gender in which they present; and

11.4 any MALE-BODIED individual identifying themselves as non-binary may compete in any open competition, league or match and should be accepted by reference to the gender identity in which they present but may not compete in any female only competition, league or match.

That is true 'acceptance without exception'.

I think they mean a biological female there, Datun.

So any biological female who identifies as a man is excluded from female-only competition.

Because in order to allow men into the women's competition (which is the whole point of this document), they have to exclude certain biological women.

Because that's how transgenderism inclusion works.

I urge you all towards an excellent article arguing for single sex clarification and spelling out the letter of the law here: fairplayforwomen.com/single-sex/

Single sex services & the Equality Act: A new statutory Code of Practice must help everyone get clear what “single sex” means.

Extracts:

The EHRC have previously promoted the idea of ‘trans inclusive single sex spaces’, but this is a logical impossibility, and its guidance to date is inconsistent with the Equality Act.

There are eight specific provisions allowing single sex facilities in the Equality Act.

In addition the public sector duty (Section 149) makes it a legal obligation for local authorities, NHS Trusts and other public bodies to assess how their policies impact on people with protected characteristics, including women and girls.

The Equality Act is clear that ‘single sex services’, and the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ relate to the protected characteristic of sex, and that this has an objective defined meaning. A woman is a ‘female of any age’. Thus, there are two sexes. Sex is observed at birth and is stated on your birth certificate. This remains biologically true throughout life.

A straightforward interpretation of the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act is that males are excluded from women’s services on the basis that they do not share the protected characteristic of being female (and vice versa). Any other protected characteristics they have is not relevant.

Many politicians and influential organisations including the Equality and Human Rights Commission have argued that “single sex spaces should be trans inclusive”. This sounds nice, but is impossible (apart from, of course, in the sense that people should not be excluded from or harassed in single sex spaces of their own sex, because of non conforming gender expression).

Transgender people may value ‘gender-affirming services’ (that is services where they are treated as if they were members of the opposite sex), friendship groups and formal associations and service providers can choose to provide such services amongst consenting adults. But it is not a proportionate means to a legitimate aim under the Equality Act to compel people using or providing single sex services to pretend that they do not perceive sex, or to conscript them into sharing spaces where where they are undressing or vulnerable with people of the opposite sex in order to provide them with a gender-validating experience.

Single sex services are already justified under the Equality Act, to achieve the legitimate aim of allowing people of either sex to access services equitably, and with reasonable privacy and dignity, and to address the disadvantages and obstacles faced by women and girls. There is no quid pro quo which says that in order to access these services women and girls must submit to the demand that they provide ‘gender affirmation’ to dysphoric males (nor, indeed that they become unwilling or unwitting participants in someone else’s sexual paraphilia).

[... there is also a lot of information about certain trans advocacy groups misrepresenting the law in order to bully women into giving up their spaces...]. For example...

Stonewall tells schools that it is a “legal requirement under the Equality Act” to allow a trans young person “to use the toilets and changing rooms of their self-identified gender rather than of their assigned sex” (it isn’t).

Are they mixing up the terms, here?

Nope.

7.6 transgender man – a term used to describe someone who is assigned female at birth but identifies and lives as a man; and
^
7.7 transgender woman – a term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman.^

I think so, Datun.

11.2 a transgender man may compete in any open competition, league or match and should be accepted in the gender in which they present, but may not compete in any female only competition, league or match;

Are they mixing up the terms, here?

They've explicitly stated in their rules that some biological females are excluded from women's cricket.

So females who identify as men - excluded
Females who identify as non-binary - excluded

Presumably all the agender, demi-gender bollocks are also excluded. Transphobic bastards.

And that's not to mention the many women and girls who will simply walk away from the sport when Trevor appears in his cricket whites on a Sunday morning. Many women of faith would just disband their teams at that point.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/03/i-can-be-myself-the-british-asian-girls-who-found-freedom-in-cricket

These are young British Asian women who found great personal development through their cricket team.

Their families would not have allowed them to join a mixed sex team.

Presumably all of whom must perform femininity in some way in order to exclude the non-binary people. Giggling and make-up, I'm guessing. There will be ECB officials at every match to ensure that femininity is performed.

Natch:

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

(Not that there is anything 'natchural' about this whole insanity.)

Section 12.3 appears to state that the ECB gets to decide whether or not any transwoman gets to play in the women's game at the higher level. Is this to protect the women's game? If so it is ridiculously nominal and surely impossible to apply, given the other ECB regulations wrt to trans people.

Anyone wishing to complain, although I really don't know what good it will do, should email to -

[email protected]

They are so messed up. I wonder how they would deal with Pippa Bunce in points 11.2 and 11.3 above.
They have been advised by the shadow government of Stonewall.

11.4 an individual identifying themselves as non-binary may compete in any open competition, league or match and should be accepted by reference to the gender identity in which they present but may not compete in any female only competition, league or match.

It means that any female who identifies as non-binary cannot enter the female competition.

Because the female competition is now reserved for some biological females and some biological males. Presumably all of whom must perform femininity in some way in order to exclude the non-binary people. Giggling and make-up, I'm guessing. There will be ECB officials at every match to ensure that femininity is performed.

Non-binary people can of course identify as both male and female, so I'm really not seeing on what basis ECB are excluding female non-binary people (who may identify as women some of the time) from female competition, but letting men who identify as women in. That is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Doesn't mention gender-fluid cricketers.

And they think all non binary people are male. Or they're falling over themselves to disregard that sex is an issue so they've lumped them all into one category to put off male chancers.

That reads as if the ECB has muddled up transmen and transwomen, though, doesn't it? When they say transgender man, I think they mean a transwoman...

Again with the 3.3 gender identity

And here again is self I.D

The law on who the protected characteristic of gender reassignment actually refers to, needs to be clarified as a priority.

That's ridiculous.

11.4 an individual identifying themselves as non-binary may compete in any open competition, league or match and should be accepted by reference to the gender identity in which they present but may not compete in any female only competition, league or match.

This doesn't even make sense!

Someone explain to me why someone with a gender identity [male to female] does not have a genuine and equal opportunity to participate in cricket. How are they being prevented from playing cricket?

This policy has been in place since at least 2016.

For any recreational Club which plays in any cricket competition, league or match which is governed by the ECB, the eligibility of a trans person is determined as follows:

11.1 any trans person may compete in any mixed gender competition, league or match in their affirmed gender or preferred gender identity and should be accepted as the gender they present or in their preferred gender identity;

11.2 a transgender man may compete in any open competition, league or match and should be accepted in the gender in which they present, but may not compete in any female only competition, league or match;

11.3 a transgender woman may compete in any open competition, league or match or any female only competition, league or match and should be accepted in the gender in which they present; and

11.4 an individual identifying themselves as non-binary may compete in any open competition, league or match and should be accepted by reference to the gender identity in which they present but may not compete in any female only competition, league or match.

So males may play in any game, but some females may not play in women's games.

This is how the ECB ensures its commitment to

...the principles of diversity and inclusion in cricket.
^

1. The ECB aims to ensure that all people, irrespective of their:

https://platform-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/ecb/document/2019/04/26/3bb659af-9a7d-4ffa-810d-7fae32959ee6/Non-First-Class-ECB-Regulations-Transgender-2019.pdf

Imagine being a teen girl with dreams of joining the excellent England team in a few years (the women's team is much more successful than the men's, in actual fact).

Now imagine your chance at a spot being scuppered by a mediocre 32 year old man who fancied his chances at playing on an internationally winning team.

This is absolutely the death of women's sport, because girls will just give up before even trying to get to a professional level. One generation and it will be gone.

Not that it matters, but I think the men at the ECB who signed this off were probably saying who wonderful and inclusive we are but probably thoughy what bollocks to themselves.

This awful process seems unstopable.

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. We are working with our men's teams to make them accept feminine men though. But no, it's more acceptable to destroy women's sports than to say No to sad men.

Yes, let’s get boycott onto this.
That would be interesting.