“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.

It could be viewed either way, calling in your lawyers and spending money on them and writing a statement calling for change suggests there are concerns of legal action. I don't blame them for worrying about this or for following the advice of their lawyers, but I hope the lawyers pointed them to these sections under the General Exceptions and got their heads around that bit before going any further.

The government can easily respond pointing out these exceptions but I'm sure there will be a discussion at DCMS as to whether greater clarity is needed and EHRC has already responded and helped them out with that.

I wonder why UKA didn't respond to the EHRC's contact? Maybe UKA just wanted to release a statement so to take a public stance. I can't explain it really but I find it very interesting - EHRC responded very quickly.

it will be interesting to see how those TW who were so desperate to take part in their sports react- after all they haven't been banned, have they, there IS a category for them

Maybe UKA just wanted to release a statement so (as) to take a public stance.

Seems the most likely. If so, good for them.

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

I got this wrong. (gets coat and slinks off)

ResisterRex · Today 17:55
@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.

Re: the Haldane implications,
there was a thread earlier this week that Sarah Phillimore came on.

She had a lot to say about this which was rather disconcerting, and consequently I wondered if Sex Matters might be over confident about their claims.

It also made me wonder if the general clarification about the EA which Suella Braverman issued last summer might be challengeable too.

Perhaps I misunderstood though. Can anyone track it? It was just the other day.

I wonder if it's more straightforward for contact sports bodies to implement blanket bans since it is a straightforward case of safety, with clear supporting evidence.

With other sports the issue is fairness which is easier to argue against since it could be seen to be more subjective and open to the case-by-case argument.

Note, I absolutely do NOT think any male should be included in women's sport, but the legislation guidance does open itself to that interpretation (and hence needs fixing pronto).

For those who've lost out to men pretending

🏅🏆💐

I was thinking the same @ditalini - I'm coming to this a bit late in the day, but thinking on this as I am now, rugby is clearly mad to have as mixed sex but something like dressage (where the horse is the performer) much less so I imagine. Tennis would be unfair to be mixed but not necessarily dangerous perhaps? I know the speed of serving differs but is the risk and result of getting hit by a hard hitting ball more of mixed sex? Cricket balls are lighter for women's cricket and there have been head injuries and even deaths by being hit I believe....It all needs to be weighed up, I suppose that's why the EHRC statement isn't definitive and says 'likely' as it depends on the sport and the policy applied and would need to be evidenced accordingly for it to be argued in court as 'lawful'.

I read it as applying to sport in general when referring to the exceptions and not just to athletics, even though that is who they are addressing in the statement.

I think it's a matter of who takes responsibility - do the sporting bodies push the government for clarification, or do they simply need reminding to operate within the existing laws? I have written to DCMS calling for clarification in the past but now see where clauses were already written into the EA to manage this, permission to exclude is already granted and legal (if evidenced) ...but if the sporting bodies aren't going to follow it, or need a tighter law in order to deflect accusations to create a blanket ban, then who's ball is the court in?

Re Haldane - I don't think the impact of that ruling is fully understood yet but I'm not a lawyer so wouldn't profess to understand.

What I take from it is that Sex as it is written in law is biological sex but Haldane read it as 'legal sex' which can clearly be completely unrelated and opposite, when you have a certificate saying so.

If 'biological' was added before every mention of 'Sex' on the EA, even as it is written under those 'Gender AffectedActivities' it would provide clarity.

“A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity”.

Lady Haldane has read the EA as legal sex which is definitely not necessarily the same thing. Even the above text would read very differently if 'legal' was added before 'Sex'.

So I guess we need clarity on what 'Sex' means in the EA.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

IMO UKA is deliberately pushing the issue because of the Haldane judgment and they are right to do so, why should they have to rely on "likely" from the EHRC when there has already been a court case on the topic of what a GRC means in practice? The government should clarify the law.

The Chair of UKA is also Scottish where this has been a particularly vexed issue for obvious reasons.

I love this!

Great news and I am not surprised that UK Athletics have taken this step as they have the overwhelming support of elite and club athletes. UK Athletics have also suffered personally when a transgender athlete attempted to murder some of their staff after their eligibility to compete as a woman was questioned.

UK Athletics have also suffered personally when a transgender athlete attempted to murder some of their staff after their eligibility to compete as a woman was questioned.
WTF???

Just the best week possible!😀

Was this someone called Jeska or something similar? Went to prison, I believe.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/14/champion-runner-lauren-jeska-jailed-for-attempted-of-uk-athletics-official-ralph-knibbs

Sorry don't know how to make it a clicky link

Good grief

i can’t believe I never heard about that.

I hope that violent criminal is not in the female prison estate…

Did Jeska go to a mens jail?

Apologies haven’t RTFT. For UK Athletics to announce anything other than this would require them to justify why they have gone against the recommendations of the UK Sports Councils which looked into this thoroughly. They would have to say they’d found something different, or were going for inclusion over fairness.

It’s a great move. And most importantly, the response will be like the response to swimming, rugby, etc. There will be minor complaints from Twitter nobodies and everyone will just get on with it.

What has happened since Scottish Rugby made their announcement just last week? Has the sky fallen in? Has there been an uprising? No. Trans activists haven’t bothered and they’ve just moved on.

Other organisations need to take note. I’m looking at you Seb Coe👀 and UCI.

Make your announcement. Stick with it. Ride it out. Don’t be cowed by lawyer talk.

Really good to see

Seb Coe appeared to share the same views as UK Athletics a year ago so I'd suspect that a lot of pressure has been put on him.
And Jeska is in a female jail, despite male levels of strength and aggression. Does have a GRC though so probably no choice.

I do remember this now. I think it does provide context as to maybe why they're taking this position.

I'm not convinced things are clear cut post-Haldane. And the EHRC saying "likely to be" - from the perspective of an organisation with that incident having happened to one of their own in recent history - may simply not be good enough.

The effect of this position though, I would hope, will be to start getting the "likely to" to a fi position. No more fudging.

I have it on reasonable authority that legal action is exactly what is stalling the UCI and BC.

I fucking love it.

The EHRC say s195(1) of the EA2010 allows discrimination on the grounds of sex if the sport is gender-affected (so that rules out males in general)
and s195(2) allows discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors.

Having read their statement, I don't see how that s195(2) can not apply to males holding a GRC. Surely by definition anyone with a GRC shares the protected characteristic of gender reassignment?

So (I assume) the absence of a reference to the 2004 GRA is a red herring because the characteristic of the group being excluded is gender reassignment, not sex.

Unless UKA are claiming that becoming the opposite sex for all purposes means that the very process which caused you to change legal sex didn't happen...?

So I'm baffled at their stance.
Also baffled that they rejected the advice of the EHRC, the statutory body tasked with giving out guidance on equality legislation. That should have been their first and last port of call.

@OhHolyJesus
Just reading that section on the meaning of gender-affected sport as if it referred to legal sex makes it nonsensical, doesn't it? Because legal sex does not make anyone stronger or faster.