ECB bans transgender women from taking part in women’s and girl’s cricket
Trans women had been free to play up to tier three of domestic cricket and throughout the recreational game.
Transgender women will no longer be able to play in competitive women’s and girl’s cricket in England and Wales after a change of policy from the sport’s governing body.
Trans women have been banned from the top two tiers of elite women’s cricket since the start of this year, but had been permitted to compete in the women’s game up to and including tier three of the domestic game and throughout recreational cricket.
However, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has now extended its policy in light of a UK Supreme Court ruling handed down last month. The change was officially approved at a board meeting on Friday.
The ECB said in a statement: “With immediate effect, only those whose biological sex is female will be eligible to play in women’s cricket and girls’ cricket matches. Transgender women and girls can continue playing in open and mixed cricket.”
The English and Scottish football associations announced new policies banning trans women from female competition on Thursday.
On April 16 the UK Supreme Court issued clarification regarding terms used in the 2010 Equality Act. Within that clarification, it said that Section 195 of the Act, which permits the lawful exclusion of athletes from gender-affected sports based on sex, was “plainly predicated on biological sex”.
Pool was the first UK sport to change policy following the ruling. England Netball announced a new policy on Thursday but has stressed those changes had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.
The ECB added in its statement: “Our regulations for recreational cricket have always aimed at ensuring that cricket remains as inclusive a sport as possible.
“These included measures to manage disparities, irrespective of someone’s gender, and safeguard the enjoyment of all players. However, given the new advice received about the impact of the Supreme Court ruling, we believe the changes announced today are necessary.
“We acknowledge that this decision will have a significant impact on transgender women and girls. We will work with Recreational Cricket Boards to support people impacted by this change in our regulations.
“We await updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and will study this carefully.
“We maintain that abuse or discrimination has no place in our sport and are committed to ensuring that cricket is played in a spirit of respect and inclusivity.”
Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said: “The ECB’s two-tier policy was never coherent. Restricting the top end of the women’s game to female-only showed that it understood men’s size and strength confer an unfair advantage in women’s sport.
“But protecting around 300 women in England and Wales while leaving the other 33,000 female cricketers to face male bowling and batting was indefensible.”
A spokesperson for Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ charity, said: “ The recent decisions of sporting bodies to ban trans women from women’s sport have been made too soon, before the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling have been worked through by lawyers and politicians or before statutory guidance has been issued.
“It is very disappointing as several of them have been long term and vocal supporters of our Rainbow Laces campaign, advocating for inclusion in sport for all ages and at all levels.
“This is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly complicated ruling and its wide-ranging impact is still being worked through by the legal fraternity. All organisations should be waiting to see how and in what way statutory guidance is changed, before making any changes to their policies.
“Trans women young and old who love sport will be deeply distressed that they are no longer able to take part at any level.
“Trans people remain protected under the law and need to be treated with dignity and respect – and this announcement lacks any detail on how those obligations will be honoured. Hasty decisions, without a full understanding of the practical implications and before any changes to guidance have gone through the necessary consultation and parliamentary process, isn’t the answer.”
