The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to sex, not self-ID or paperwork (gender-recognition certificates). This agreed with our legal interpretation. We have published new guidance and are in the process of updating our publications to reflect the judgment. We are also working to provide answers to the questions we're hearing from supporters and the media. We will publish these as soon as possible.

Sign up
Donate

What does the Equality Act mean for women’s sports?

The game of pool is providing two legal test cases

There are two ongoing cases in the same sport, pool. Women’s tournaments are run in the UK by Ultimate Pool Group (UPG), under rules set by the World Eight Ball Federation (WEBF) with prizes of up to £2,000.

Pool has hit the news again this week because on 6th April the final of the latest UPG women’s tournament was contested by two male players, Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith. Haynes picked up the £1,800 prize money, Smith the £900 runner-up purse.

In August 2023, three pool organisations – UPG, WEBF and a third body, England Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) – jointly announced that their women’s events would be for those female at birth. This was a reversal of past self-ID policy. They did this because a trans-identifying male player, Harriet Haynes, appeared to be dominating in women’s events. 

In response, Haynes threatened all three with legal action. UPG and WEBF backed down in October 2023, reverting to their previous policy that anyone could self-identify into the women’s events. One, EBPF, did not. 

All three bodies are now defending discrimination cases. The two that changed their rules to allow the trans-identifying male player are being sued for discrimination by a group of almost 30 women, led by six named players including Lynne Pinches, who forfeited a match against Haynes in 2023.

In parallel, Haynes is suing the EBPF for having refused to amend its rules to let him into its women’s events. That is the case being heard at Canterbury Magistrates Court from 7th to 11th April 2025. 

In each case, the claim is of discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic. Haynes argues that EBPF have excluded him because he is trans (meaning that he has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment). In the other case, the women say that to allow male players into the women’s category is discrimination against them on the basis of their sex, because men in pool have a fair category and they do not. Both will be citing the Equality Act 2010.

Pool is what is known as a precision sport. The cases will feature expert witnesses on both sides. In the Haynes v EBPF case, a trans-identifying male academic and football player, Dr Blair Hamilton, will be an expert witness arguing for Haynes and other trans-identifying male players to be admitted into women’s tournaments. For the defence in that case, Dr Emma Hilton, a developmental biologist and a trustee of Sex Matters, will provide evidence that pool is a sex-affected sport, in which male players have significant advantages. For example, on average their reach is greater; their upper-body strength means they can hit the opening break shot more effectively; and those two factors combine to give them better accuracy in potting balls. That means that it is lawful, under s.195 of the Equality Act, to provide a women-only category of competition and to exclude all males, including those claiming the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. 

The Equality Act says this is permitted in:

“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”.

There is no provision to argue that some males – those with a transgender identity – should be permitted while others – those who admit to being men – should not. But this is the line being taken by the Haynes case. 

When will the results be known?

Judgments in county court cases, like Haynes v EBPF, can come in a matter of weeks. The claimants and defendants in the case being brought against UPG and WBPF have pursued another route to see whether agreement can be reached without a full court hearing. A decision on that should come in the next month. If they cannot agree then that case will proceed to court. 

Pool might seem an unlikely test case. It may be less obviously sex-affected than, say, weightlifting or swimming. But there is no sliding scale in the Equality Act. It’s a simple binary: whether a sport is sex-affected, in which case exclusion of every male from the women’s competitive category is lawful, or whether it is not. If pool wins, that sets a clear precedent for all other sports.

Filed under Protect sport for women and girls   Sport   Updates   Workplaces  

Tags: