“UKA has today outlined its position relating to transgender participation in athletics in the UK.”

[Helleofabore]

www.uka.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/UKA-Trans-Position-Statement_FINAL-03.02.23.pdf

This is what Jon Pike said was coming.

can't see that lasting for ever - after all, GRA is G for gender.
We all know that Gender is a societal construct with no specific definition or meaning - so saying that someone was of male or female gender at birth is of course irrelevant - it is the biological sex that matters and that is proveable and non-changeable.

The good news is that people are realising that it is okay to talk truth and be honest about reality rather than having to propogate a bunch of mysteries and lies pretending something that can't ever happen!

As more of that happens I forecast that we will eventually move to the final destination - based on science / fact / common sense:

• you are born male or female as your biological sex
• sex is immutable and however much legislation there is or surgery undertaken it can not be changed
• gender is a construct which has no basis in science or fact, changes over time and is how groups of people portray themselves at any one point in time
• as gender is a construct it has no bearing in law - people can feel that they are any gender they like - but all decisions / sports / laws / etc. will be based on sex which is immutable not gender

At that point in time there will be no logic to GRA or similar... and we will be back out into the land of truth and reality!

My thoughts exactly. Cowardly buck-passing or a get-out clause.

I am so glad to see this.

Now I hope parkrun adopt this "female" and "open" category so we get back out lost places in the female records

Great news

Yes I liked @oldwhyno s post. Who is doing the including, of whom, in what, and why? Why haven't they been doing it up til now - if they haven't?

I find it quite plausible that some transwomen have had very poor experiences in male sport classes, and coaches need to lead the way in genuine inclusion. Coaches have sometimes been the lead factor in opening female sport to male athletes, and they can make a positive change.

As for Sean Ingle's article - he's a journalist and that's a story. 'Women's athletics is for women' shouldn't be much of a story really.

What does it mean for transmen? Open category? I assume if they competed in the female category on T that would cause issues for doping?

My apologies @oldwhyno I misinterpreted your thoughts and thanks for the corrections from PPs, I'm pleased to understand now that it was a point re men being welcome in mens sports, prisons etc regardless of how they present and that it wasn't an expectation of women to have accept them in theirs.

I admit to being a bit spikey today and I'd wish lawyers would do their bloody jobs properly. The EHRC statement is very clear.

But while UKA now makes clear that the women’s category should be reserved “for competitors who were female at birth, so that they can continue to compete fairly”, it says the government must introduce legislation to ensure beyond doubt that it will not be legally challenged.

I agree with them, the statement from the EHRC is inadequate to protect UKA from a legal challenge. To include the word "likely" when you are attempting to provide clarification is rubbish.

I think transmen in particular have to choose - validation of their gender in the open category, and taking their chances as an athlete, or validation as an athlete in the female category without testosterone.

It will be interesting on whether the Therapeutic Use Exemptions for testosterone for transmen in the male categories will be challenged in an open category.

LIKELY TO BE

It would depend on the wording of the policy I suppose, the point being they can exclude on the basis of sex and this has always been the case. If anything it shows how these trans inclusive policies based on gender/gender identity have been unlawful for years.

As the piece from SexMatters explains,
"our analysis is that no legal change is required"

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/why-are-lawyers-giving-faulty-advice-about-women-only-sports/

The government doesn't need to amend or update the EA, the sporting bodies need to understand the laws and operate within them and stop making stuff up - the same applies to the lawyers advising them.

This is great. I can forgive the concessions ("all sexes" etc)

"It is therefore likely to be lawful for a sporting body or organisation to adopt a trans exclusive policy in relation to gender-based sporting competition where they can evidence that it is necessary to do so in order to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors."

If they couldn't evidence that it is necessary - for safety or fairness - then it may not be likely that it is lawful.

I do need to read that sex matters article Jesus and catch up whether the EHRC has said anything.

@OhHolyJesus I get it but that link from Sex Matters doesn't grapple with the Haldane implications. It does seem like that has thrown a spanner in the works (eg ehe Women and Eq Committee this week).

I am not that concerned about differing views by organisations that I think are generally sensible. It could be useful in fact, for putting pressure on the government and EHRC to make it explicit.

In fact, I forgot about the EHRC as they've gone so quiet of late. Weren't they meant to be doing guidance? That seems to have died a death.

Brilliant.

Praise be!

I love the paragraph about the female category being to ensure that women can compete fairly.
So glad we seem to have grown ups in charge again

Fabulous!

Point (d) is so good I'm going to say it again:

The category of “women’s athletics” arose as a way of enabling the inclusion of women in athletics. Women who wished to compete in athletics could not do so fairly with men, because of the physical advantages men enjoy due to their (male) biological sex. Therefore, the decision was made to create a separate, sex-based category in which people of the female sex could fairly compete against one another. The category of women’s sport arose not as a response to women’s social role or personal gender identity, but to ensure fair competition amongst female athletes by eliminating the advantages enjoyed by male athletes on account of their sex.

Oh joy!!

There's a lot happening this week so difficult to keep up, I know I feel that way!
Basically the Lady H judgement has not had an impact, not according to the EHRC:

"This understanding of the law has not altered following the Court of Session's decision in For Women Scotland and other sporting bodies agree with this interpretation."

So they consulted other sporting bodies and presumably they in turn consulted their lawyers. It's not bad news what UKA has said or done, but it's not necessary so it's just money spent on lawyers and statement to government when the laws have this covered already.

I agree with them, the statement from the EHRC is inadequate to protect UKA from a legal challenge. To include the word "likely" when you are attempting to provide clarification is rubbish.

Do they phrase it as likely due to no case law?

I think they are saying

”Please make this completely clear. We do not want to be forced to spend time and money fighting this in the courts, even if it seems certain we will win”.

Do they phrase it as likely due to no case law?

Who wants to be the case?

Yes indeed - their legal advice has come from trans rights lobbyists - according to Fair Play For Women. So Stonewall law?

And speaking purely as a laywoman, I don't understand how a provision in the EA2010 which specifically mentions excluding people holding GRCs can be held not to apply to people holding GRCs because the Act which creates GRCs isn't referenced. There is no other way to get a GRC, so why does that omission matter?

It has struck me before that when organisations/bodies/people talk about "exemptions" rather than exceptions and the "Equalities" Act rather than the Equality Act, it's a little tell that they have been trained in Stonewall law.

What I don't quite get in all this is, Athletics seem to saying, we'd like to exclude Transwomen from womens' events, but are fearful of legal challenges. But if both rugby codes, swimming, and other sports have already done this, why can't Athletics follow suit? Or have I misunderstood?