FA to ban men from womens football

Youve nailed it in terms of the insurance position I think.

My OH is in the industry and assures me that the cost of such an exception would be considerable given that such a case would now certainly lose. As a pp said, there's no profit in insuring against a certainty and moreover one that is likely to occur in the current litigious climate in this area.

I do find it annoying that the driver is basic capitalism rather than obvious science or interest in women's rights, but I'll take our wins where i find them 🙂

I wish the article would explore why Billie doesn’t feel safe playing on a men’s team.

feeling safe has become a catch up that can’t be questioned. Unless it is women saying that and then it is transphobia.

I agree. It think it's probably the best we can expect from the BBC in terms of balance though. It would be interesting to delve more into why female players are afraid of speaking out, but hopefully people can read between the lines with that.

The article said Billie played for two teams. Billie will carry on playing with one of them as they are no longer FA affiliated in response to the policy. I assume these are the players that Billie says are supportive. This could be a solution for those teams who are adamant that they want trans women to keep playing with them. Although, if that is the vibe, it's likely any women on the team who disagree with doing this will keep silent.

It’s not a bad article, though rather emotive when talking about the poor male player (they’ve chosen to feature a very “pretty” one) and somewhat more factual when addressing the women’s point of view.
So, on the face of it, balanced, but with some bias towards the trans player.

@ItsCoolForCats yes, it included everybody's point of view.

What it didn't do though, is address why transgender Billie thinks "I don't feel safe playing there" (with the men) and why women should be in the position of being unsafe instead, and, unlike Billie, it has been without any choice in the matter.

It also didn't question Billie's statement that Billie's teammates "want me here". Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but given that of the women that the BBC talked to, "Most did not want to go on record with their opinions because of a fear of reprisals, but one footballer, who plays in the sixth tier of the women's game, was willing to speak anonymously" we certainly can't assume that Billie's teammates are able to speak the truth.

In fact, that was my main takeaway from this article. The poor, vulnerable transgender Billie is happy to use their own name and own photo, but although the BBC approached "a number of grassroots footballers who support the ban" they couldn't find a single one who was prepared to risk "a fear of reprisals" by going on public record.

This policy comes into effect today, and there is an article on BBC Sport:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx2e0l5gr27o

It starts off with an interview with a transwoman called Sky, who is very sad about the new policy. However, Sky is still playing football on a non FA-affiliated team, so is not being prevented from playing football. Sky has also turned down the offer to coach or referee on an FA-affiliated women's team.

However, the article does give a decent amount of space to an interview with a female footballer who supports the policy (anonymously of course, for fear of reprisals). And she discussed the fact that female players have been put in situations where they come up against male players, against their consent, and are told not to say anything. So overall, it's not a bad article.

How long will we have to see the pronouns not based on correct sex

The Supreme Court ruling was clear on biological male. Will it change the language we see?

Another local "lovely lady" moaning about the policy:

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/25134935.castle-point-trans-goalie-leaves-team-fa-policy-change/

This isn't my area of expertise but Public Liability Insurance provides cover for the insured party against the costs of a claim under EqA2010. Following the SC ruling, any sports organiser that that allows members of one sex to compete in competitions that are ostensibly for the opposite sex would be liable to a claim of direct discrimination from any member of the named sex and indirect discrimination from any member of the excluded sex without the additional protected characteristic. Any such claim would inevitably succeed. Insurers do not insure against a certainty.

ETA

Of course I don't know what appetite the insurers might have to write specific exclusions into the policy terms to remove cover in these and similar circumstances or the appetite of the insured to accept such exclusions.

https://x.com/millihill/status/1918009389589356570
Listen here. She certainly shut Evan Davies up.

@ChateauMargaux it’s here that Sharron Davies mentions the FA insurance

I don't think insurance companies are sticking up for women and girls, sadly - it's that everybody now knows that the sports bodies have no legal cover for the increased risks of putting women in competition with men, especially in contact sports.

Thanks @WandaSiri .. sorry.. must have googled the wrong Ross Tucker..

Maybe the Sports Organisations were under pressure from their insurance companies... it has been a hope that they would... I guess I didn't see any evidence that anyone was sticking up for women, not the sport organisations, not the courts and I have never seen any evidence of insurance companies stepping up to the plate.

Professor Ross Tucker is actually South African, just by the by. I cited him because he is an eminent sports scientist and was one of the experts which World Rugby invited to contribute when they had a very thorough consultation about their transgender policy in 2020(?), which resulted in their policy of keeping males out of the women's game. The potential insurance liabilities were a big part of the motivation to get the policy right. World Rugby is not a US body.

He's been on platforms with Emma Hilton and I believe they co-authored a paper (with others), but I'm a bit hazy as to the title.

@ChateauMargaux I can't say for definite as they will never admit it but sporting organisations allowing men to play women's sport was always going to put them at risk of being sued and the SC judgement just clarified that

@ChateauMargaux Sharron Davies mentioned the FA’s insurer in one of her interviews. Sorry I can’t remember which one as I’ve listened to them all!

Excuse my language but it's an absolute fucking disgrace female safety wasn't considered until insurers pulled the plug on cover.

As I get older I realise more and more everything is about the money.

The potential insurance payouts are often cited as a reason but I see no evidence that any players would have a claim ... I would love to proven wrong.

Ross Tucker is American, the litigation culture is different in the US.

I would love to see details of how a UK player would have a claim and how this would be brought through the courts.. Health and Safety Executive, Criminal Liability, Insurance claims... The only one I could find was a semi professional player who broke his ankle and sued the opposition club for loss of earnings of £20k (for 18 months out of football) and costs which amounted to £135k.

Did any insurance companies advise sporting organisations to change their policies like @Chrysanthemum5 claims? If so.. I would love to know more...

@ChateauMargaux

I don't have the information you asked for, but I do know (via Ross Tucker's podcast) that potential insurance costs and payouts were a major factor in causing World Rugby to review the evidence about males and females playing together.

Perhaps the difference with the cases you are thinking of is that the players have consented to the risk by getting on the field of play, and the risk is proportionate because they are of the same sex. Whereas women have not consented to play against men and the risk of injury to women from contact injuries is much higher when they play against men? Just theorising.

Is there any evidence that the insurance companies have stated this?

In my experience of reviewing the insurance provided to sports organisations provide for tiny payouts in limited circumstances... I don't know of any large payouts or situations where anyone has challenged this..

I would love to know of any information on this...

What a relief. Girls in my class frequently come off worse playing lunchtime football with their male peers. They're only 10 and 11 years old. I shudder to think of the damage women footballers could come to when playing men. This is very sensible.

Turns out it's not difficult when your insurers tell you that allowing transwomen to play will invalidate your cover or means huge increases in costs. It's only complicated when the cost is women's safety and ability to participate in fair sport

All these organisations etc who until recently claimed this subject was so difficult and therefore let's just let the men into everything are falling like dominoes.

Turns out it's not so difficult to understand after all! Who'd have thunk it!

As pp posted

Transgender women have been banned from competing in all levels of women's cricket with immediate effect, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has announced.

In an update to its transgender regulations, the ECB said "only those whose biological sex is female" will be able to participate in women's and girls' cricket.

The ECB say transgender women and girls can continue playing in open and mixed cricket categories.
The policy change follows a UK Supreme Court ruling on 15 April which said the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

Thank you to FWS and everyone for winning this

The ECB has now done the same as the FA. Wonder how long before India starts wailing because they also used to be a top level cricketer.

BBC News - ECB bars transgender women from women's cricket
www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/articles/c0l0rje87y5o

lol, you’ve got to hand it to them 😂