“SEEN in Sport has been a warrior in the defence of women’s sports and displayed a better understanding of applicable law than did the governing bodies of the FA, the ECB and many others.” Colin Wynter, KC.

“Any sport that calls a category Women or Girls needs to exclude all biological males.” Sharron Davies, MBE.

Sport and the Law

Following the Supreme Court Ruling in the UK, the Law is clear - no male, regardless of identity or the possession a Gender Recognition Certificate, has a legal entitlement to participate in women’s sports or a woman-only recreational activity.

If some males are allowed to participate in the female sports category or in women-only events, such a policy undermines fair play, exposes women and girls to risk of injury, leads to self-exclusion by women, creates a real risk of litigation, jeopardises applicable insurance and creates PSED risk, all of which may damage an organisation’s reputation and financial position.

Policy makers need to show leadership and comply with the existing law now.

“For institutions to double down on legally discredited positions is not a sensible way forward. It will involve further costly and acrimonious litigation to settle disputes which those who continue to deny the validity of biological sex will be fated to lose.” (The Times editorial, May 26th, 2025)

What is the risk of ignoring the Supreme Court Ruling?

There are several risks if a sports governing body, sports and social club, leisure centre, gym or event organiser continues to retain a policy that allows any males to self-identify into female changing rooms, events or sports categories:

1. Legal risk. If a category, event or changing room is labelled Female, Male, Womens, Mens, Girls or Boys, they must be single-sex. If some members of the opposite sex are permitted, it is no longer single-sex and this will expose an organisation to liability for sex discrimination claims and belief discrimination claims;

2. Insurance risk. Organisations may believe that their public liability, Directors and Officers and/or Employment Practices Liability insurances would cover a potential claim. However, a policy that allows males into the female category does not simply increase the risk of claims of discrimination being brought against a company, organisation, officers or directors. If this material risk was not disclosed to the insurers, the insurers could declare the insurance policy invalid ab initio (from the start). Moreover, claims arising from illegal actions, matters or practices are unenforceable as a matter of public policy, irrespective of whether or not this is stated within the policy. There is a serious risk that an organisation is, in effect, uninsured. Where the organisation is an unincorporated association (i.e. not an incorporated entity), any liability will be personal upon its members;

3. Safety risk. There is a physical risk when males are in a contact sport with females and a safeguarding risk when males are present where women and girls are vulnerable, such as a changing room;

4. Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) risk. The Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) relates to PSED and requires accurate “data in order to fulfil this duty.” An organisation subject to PSED should undertake an equality impact assessment before implementing a policy that would affect “specific groups with different protected characteristics.” Some organisations have failed to undertake such an assessment by only considering the benefit to “transsexual persons” without considering the impact to women;

5. Reputational risk. Even without a well-publicised incident of injury, harassment or abuse, there is also the reputational risk to an organisation which fails to support fairness in women’s sport. Taking taxpayer money to promote women’s sports or boasting of encouraging female inclusion in sport will seem hypocritical, if women and girls are not permitted to have a level playing field. Many sponsors will not wish to be associated with sports or events that fail to support women and girls.

Lawfully compliant policies will reduce these risks and be welcomed. It is not just elite female athletes who deserve fair and safe sport. The vast majority of the public  support policies which exclude all males from the female category, elite and grassroots.

What was the Supreme Court Ruling on the Equality Act 2010?

On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers (SC Ruling) judgement clarified that “The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 (Equality Act 2010) is biological and not certificated sex.” “The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary.”

Baroness Falkner, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stated, “If people who are biologically male are permitted to take part in a woman’s single-sex sport or use a women’s single-sex service, it will no longer meet the conditions for being provided on a single-sex basis. It becomes a mixed-sex space.”

Does the Supreme Court Ruling affect sports?

Yes. The SC Ruling explicitly addresses sport at paragraphs 53, 77, 128, 232-6, 247 and in its concluding summary at 265(xv). The SC Ruling provides clarity that when organising a women’s event, a “competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1)” of the EA 2010. For reasons of fair competition or safety, all males (including males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, whether or not they have a GRC) can be lawfully excluded from a female sports category or event. It is NOT unlawful discrimination based on gender reassignment. This is lawful discrimination based on sex.

Has the law been changed?

No. The SC Ruling has not changed the law. It has clarified the existing law which has previously been misinterpreted in many policies regarding sports participation and eligibility. The ruling was unanimous and the judgement was clear. As such, any existing policies which are at odds with the law are currently exposed to significant legal risk. Waiting for guidance prolongs this risk.

Is it lawful to have single-sex sport categories?

Yes. In the UK, women-only and men-only sporting categories and events are lawful as detailed in Section 195 of the EA 2010. Moreover, Schedule 3, paras 26-28 of the EA 2010 permit a service provider to discriminate on the basis of sex to provide separate or single-sex services.

In most parts of everyday life, you cannot discriminate based on sex. However, there is a “complete exemption in relation to the prohibition against sex discrimination in a sport that is a gender-affected activity” - i.e. it is completely lawful to have separate male and female sport categories based on biological sex.

Can some individuals be included in an opposite-sex category on a case-by-case basis?

No. If a single individual is in an opposite-sex category, the entire category becomes a mixed-sex category. This means that the sex discrimination exception from Section 195(1) becomes invalidated. Likewise the Schedule 3 exceptions become invalidated. The organiser/ body responsible for this policy is then exposed to a risk of sex discrimination. 

Section 195 (3) of the EA 2010 explicitly refers to where 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” then a single-sex female category is lawful. This lawfully excludes all males, including those with a trans identity, for reasons of fairness and safety. When the category or event is female-only, it is irrelevant if a specific male is not strong or fast compared to others or if he is on hormone treatment or has had surgery. He cannot lawfully be included in a women’s event, even if it was unlikely to be unfair or unsafe for women. The single-sex category or event is created as a result of the average differences between males and females, not on an individual basis.  

Indeed, the UK Sports Councils Equality Group (SCEG) Guidance for sports governing bodies specifically advised that “a case-by-case assessment is unlikely to be practical nor verifiable” and in any event “categorisation by sex is lawful.” “Provision is for average advantage, not individual advantage.”  Moreover, it is not reasonable to assume that individuals who have chosen to participate in a single-sex category have also consented to participate in a mixed-sex category. 

What about discrimination based on gender reassignment?

The nine protected characteristics in the EA 2010 include sex and gender reassignment. There has been a widespread misunderstanding that a trans-identifying male could not be lawfully excluded from a Female category because that would be discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. This is false.

Where there is the “participation of a transsexual person as a competitor,” it remains completely lawful to exclude that person from competing in the opposite sex category providing “it is necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity - (a) fair competition, or (b) the safety of competitors”. Thus it is lawful to exclude all males, including trans-identifying males, from a female category to preserve fair or safe competition for women and girls. This is “a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.”

“Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality.” The trans-identifying male is not being excluded due to having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but on account of his sex – he can be lawfully excluded in the same way that all males are excluded from women’s services or sports.

Prior to the clarity of the SC Ruling, there was an additional misunderstanding that the possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) meant that a trans-identifying male had to be treated as a legal female for the purposes of the EA 2010. The SC Ruling states, "It is in practice impossible for organisations to distinguish between people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who do and do not have a GRC.” Indeed, some organisers felt forced to “accept members or users of the opposite biological sex” into what was supposed to be a single-sex category, even though “the individual’s biological sex may continue to be readily perceivable.” The clarity of the SC Ruling means that service providers, including sports organisers, can lawfully exclude all males, even those with a GRC, from women’s sports.

Is it lawful to have single-sex changing rooms?

Yes. For employers, The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992  specifically require that all workplaces, including leisure centres, gyms and sports clubs must provide separate single-sex toilets and additionally single-sex changing rooms where staff are required to change at work. It has never been lawful to provide communal changing, washing, or sanitary facilities on a self-identification basis whereby individuals can choose to use opposite-sex facilities.

The EA 2010 relates to other areas where service providers may provide single-sex services to members of the public. The EA 2010 contains provisions which “are directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas (that might be desirable for the protection of a woman’s safety, or the autonomy or privacy and dignity of the two sexes).” The section on “Single-sex services...for example...changing rooms,” states “the condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service” and that “B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.”

The SC Ruling explains that “The plain intention of these provisions is to allow for the provision of separate or single-sex services for women which exclude all (biological) men (or vice-versa)”. Single-sex changing rooms are completely lawful. If a biological male is in a female changing room, it is no longer single-sex.

What is a “gender affected activity”?

A “gender affected activity” is a defined term in law relating to an activity affected by sex. (This was written in a time when gender was a term meaning biological sex and it is not related to the undefined concept of ‘gender identity’). The EA 2010 states that "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.”  Indeed, given that on average, males have greater physical strength and stamina than females, sporting activity of any kind will inherently have male advantage.

Legal advice for the UK Home Nations Sports Councils for Transgender Inclusion (Sep 2021) makes it clear that “there is a need to consider average persons; not individuals. This is not the average of the person who participates in the sport but on average generally, between the sexes. A sport that is heavily reliant on size and strength, such as rugby, is a good example of ‘gender-affected activity’.” In April 2025, it was confirmed that Pool is a gender affected activity and males should no longer play in the women’s category. It is not unreasonable to assume that any sport with a greater than or equal physicality level than Pool will also be a sex affected activity. Even with stationary sports such as darts and archery, the greater average upper body strength, height and reach will still give a male advantage.

Moreover, any activity which has a Female category is likely to be a sex affected activity, even if there is no immediately obvious physical disadvantage. For example, Chess grandmaster Susan Polgar discusses the need for Girl’s or Women’s tournaments.

Is it only relevant for elite, competitive sport?

No. It is legally incoherent to have a two-tier policy that respects elite women’s single-sex sport but discriminates against grassroots women. If a sport is affected by sex, then the Female single-sex category is lawful for all females at all levels, elite and grassroots. If a policy allows some males into the Female category at the grassroots level, it becomes a mixed-sex category and is exposed to litigation risk.

Moreover, the EA 2010 refers to sport but also to a “game or other activity of a competitive nature.” Section 195 of the EA 2010 covers any activity of a competitive nature which has separate categories for male and female. Thus, it includes grassroots, amateur and recreational events and activities. It does not have to be an elite competition to be an “activity of a competitive nature”. A fun run with male and female categories with ranked finish times would be an example of this.

Furthermore, Schedule 3 covers single-sex services. A non-competitive activity such as a women-only yoga class, swimming session or recreational cycling session would be examples of a single-sex service that lawfully excludes all males.

Are “trans inclusive” policies lawful?

No, not if “trans inclusive” means to permit individuals to use the single-sex services of the opposite-sex. The EA 2010 permits a service provider to discriminate on the basis of sex and gender reassignment in order to provide single-sex services. However, these exceptions only apply provided the service is based on biological sex. Without the ability to rely on these Schedule 3 exceptions, a service provider is exposed to liability for any discrimination or harassment arising from the operation of the service.

A policy that allows trans-identifying males into a female category or service will be open to several potential discrimination claims because it is not a single-sex service and thus cannot rely on Schedule 3 exceptions:

• If an organisation were to include women plus trans-identifying males into a service, then the only people excluded would be males who did not have a trans identity. This would be direct sex discrimination against those excluded males;

• This policy would amount to direct belief discrimination as it discriminates against those males who do not believe in a trans identity. Belief is one of the protected characteristics in the EA 2010. Crucially, the lack of belief in gender identity is protected under the EA 2010;

• A claim of discrimination could arise also from the detriment suffered by women service users by the inclusion of males.

In contrast, policies which include trans-identifying people in accordance with their sex would be lawful.

Does the SC Ruling mean that trans-identifying people have lost rights?

No. They remain protected from discrimination and harassment. The SC Ruling has an entire section titled “Why this interpretation would not be disadvantageous to or remove protection from trans people with or without a GRC”. For example, they remain protected where they are “treated less favourably because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment,” for example if a trans-identifying male was treated less favourably than another male who did not have a trans identity. They remain protected from discrimination based on their sex. Trans-identifying persons have never had a “right” to undress in an opposite-sex changing room or to compete in an opposite-sex sport.

Does the SC Ruling mean there is a blanket ban on trans-identifying people from playing sport?

No. Categorising a sport by sex is not a ban, in the same way that categorising a sport by age does not mean there is a blanket ban on adults to play sport. Sport includes everyone but in the interests of fairness and safety, sport has categories into which everyone must fall. The SCEG guidance states clearly that “categorisation within the sex binary is and remains the most useful and functional division relative to sporting performance...Hence, sports should retain sex categorisation, along with age and disability (and weight as appropriate) categories.”

Trans-identifying males are still included in the male category because their sex is male. The SCEG guidance states “Evidence indicates it is fair and safe for transgender people to be included within the male category for most sports.” Trans-identifying females are still included in the female category because their sex is female. There is an issue of fair competition with regards to females who take testosterone though.

Sports organisers may recognise that some individuals do not wish to compete in the category for which they are eligible and wish to identify into a different category. However, the challenge for sports governing bodies and organisers is to encourage participation so that individuals are comfortable and welcomed in their own sex category which is the proper meaning of the word ‘inclusion.’ Alternatively, they can create additional mixed-sex or open options. This can be done without creating a potentially unlawful policy that erodes the integrity of a single-sex category and reduces the fairness to and safety of women and girls.

Is it lawful to ask someone to prove eligibility in a sports activity?

Yes. The SCEG guidance states “categorisation by sex is lawful and hence the requirement to request information relating to birth sex is appropriate. No individual is compelled to provide any information to a sports organisation. However, failure to provide such information would mean that person may not be able to compete.” Similarly, a person may consider their age or weight to be private information but in order to compete in a specific sport category, they may need to provide proof of eligibility. A sports organiser is entitled to ask for evidence of eligibility and this can be done with sensitivity.

Does this affect children’s sports or activities?

Yes. While a GRC is only available to over 18s, in the EA 2010, “‘woman’ includes a female of any age and ‘man’ includes a male of any age.” Girls and boys are also protected in the EA 2010. The Sports Science section of the UK Sports Councils guidance notes that “Research on children indicate that there is a significant difference in strength, stamina, and physique at all ages, and this has been recorded from six years until maturation in comprehensive data sets.” The average difference between girls and boys exists well before puberty.

Is it obligatory to have separate sex categories at a sports event?

No but without a protected female category there is a potential risk of indirect sex discrimination. A sports governing body, competition or recreational event organiser, sports club or gym is not required by the EA 2010 to create a female category, have female events or have a female changing area for participants. However, while it is entirely possible to organise only mixed-sex events, doing so would not promote the inclusion of women and girls and would be contrary to the UK Sports Councils guidance to retain sex categorisation. This is particularly important for those organisations which claim to be inclusive or receive taxpayer money specifically aimed at promoting women’s sports.

It is entirely lawful to create events for women and trans-identifying males who wish to play together. However, these events cannot be classified as female only and such teams cannot compete in sports leagues that operate sex-based rules. The female category exists so that females can be included in sport and it is not lawful for males to identify into it.

Additional Reading

Legal advice for the UK Home Nations Sports Councils for Transgender Inclusion (Sep 2021)

Providing single-sex services with confidence is a guide for service providers produced by Sex Matters, a human rights charity, which was one of the interveners in the SC Ruling and commended by the Supreme Court judges for the clarity of their legal arguments.

Sex matters: putting the Supreme Court ruling into practice - Sex Matters

Are Trans Inclusive Policies Lawful? By Michael Foran, Lecturer in public law. He is cited in the SC Ruling, paragraph 142.