BBC article from yesterday, and covered briefly on the 10 O'Clock News.
UK Athletics wants a change in legislation to ensure the women's category is lawfully reserved for competitors who are recorded female at birth. [Sic - wanky TRA speak]
UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women, saying there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".
UKA does not believe the 'sporting exemption' introduced in the Equality Act 2010 allows them to lawfully exclude transgender women in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate from competing.
They are butting heads with the Government and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, who say the existing Equality Act exemptions under s195 of the EqA are enough to allow UKA to exclude TW in possession of a GRC:
Responding to the UKA statement on Friday, the EHRC said 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".
"Likely to be lawful" doesn't seem to be enough for UKA, which wants the men's category to become an open category in which trans people can compete.
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/statement-uk-athletics-position-trans-people’s-participation-athletics
From the Guardian:
....the UKA chair, Ian Beattie, said his organisation was fearful of making such a change having taken legal advice regarding the Gender Recognition Act of 2004.
“It states that people with gender recognition certificates have to be treated as female for all purposes,” he said. “And there’s not an exemption for that for sporting purposes.”
“If we don’t get a legal change, it will be very difficult for us to go ahead with this policy,” he said. “The risks to the organisation would be too high.”
The campaign group Sex Matters said its legal advice concurred with the government and not UKA. “Sex Matters agrees with UKA that female-only sports are essential to provide safe and fair competition for women. But female-only competition is already lawful under the Equality Act.”
However the LGBTQ+ organisation Stonewall urged UKA to reconsider its position and to keep allowing trans women in female sport.
www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/03/uk-athletics-trans-women-female-events-law-change
I'd be really interested to know what legal advice UKA have received to suggest they are not protected. It may well be that "Likely to be lawful" means that they have to go through some arduous case by case process every time a TW wants to compete, and there's a risk of some TW getting around the exemption. Maybe they just don't want to be lobbied, or at worst sued, by groups like Stonewall and want a cast iron ban.
Whilst I can't disagree that the EqA already covers them, UKA's stance is very heartening. They've forced the government to confirm that they can exclude TW, rightfully and lawfully. Furthermore, they are a powerful voice in world athletics - hopefully other countries' athletic bodies will find the courage to seek similar clarification. It would be great if more countries' athletics federations stood up to World Athletics and their disappointing concessions to the TRAs.