Transgender pool player loses discrimination claim after being barred from women’s tournaments
A transsexual pool player lost a claim of discrimination against one of the main organizers of the sport on the decision to ban women from women’s competitions and teams.
Professional actress Harriet Haynes, the British Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF), women’s activities, except everyone who was not appointed to women at birth brought new rules to court. In his claim, he said that the movement was “direct discrimination” against him on the grounds that gender was re -appointed.
However, in a decision published on Friday, a court rejected the claim and said that it was the only “reasonable” way to provide “fair competition .. Speaking after the decision, the representatives of Mrs. Haynes said that they were naturally disappointed ”, thinking whether the court’s decision and whether it would be appealed.
The turning point decision was made after a Supreme Court decision in April, which first applied a newly established legal definition of a woman as a biologically female.
While talking Independent Previously, Ms. Haynes said that EBPF was stunned by her first decision, which limited her competition in eight ball games.
In August 2023, the body announced that the events of the ladies would only be open to people born women, and that the game aims to make sure that the game was played with equality and justice ”.
However, Ms. Haynes said that she did not think that she has an unfair advantage because she passes through the male adolescence and said to this publication: “All I want is to play like another woman.”
The Honorary Judge Parker, who delivered his decision, concluded that the pool was “an activity affected by gender ve and the fact that those who were born as a male were excluded from the category of women was necessary to secure fair competition.
In addition, a few days after the trial, the Supreme Court of Appeals “can not” survive, “he said.
Ms. Haynes, a gender recognition certificate, said that the exclusion of Kent Women’s A Pool team was “direct discrimination” because of its gender re -appointment. After the change of rule, he summarized how he was “distress and sad ve and how he suffered in a series of“ hurtful ”on social media.
He also claimed that policy violated various provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including eight articles summarizing the right to respect the individual’s private and family life. The claim added that “the identity of playing pool in the women’s category” was taken from it ”.
However, the representatives of EBPF, on the grounds of the re -appointment of the rule as “male was born ve and did not discriminate against him and“ a female -born transsexual person would not be excluded ”added. In addition, they argued that the pool was “an activity that was affected by gender ğı after the evidence from the experts.
Judge Parker said that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a woman’s definition of biological gender will not eliminate important guards for trans people under the law of equality. For this reason, the Supreme Court said that it was “unimaginable” to see it as in conflict with the guards within the ECHR.
In the decision, he wrote: “There is no reasonable alternative to obtaining a fair rivalry exclusion abbreviation,” he added: “The claim fails in the first obstacle because there is no discrimination of assignment again. Therefore, the claim should be rejected.”
Football Association, transsexual women from next season to play women’s football in the UK will be banned after announcing that they will be banned. The administrative body said that his decision was followed by the high court’s decision about a woman’s legal definition.
Matt Champ, a senior partner of Colman Coele, representing Mrs. Haynes, said, “We and our client were disappointed with the court’s decision to follow the Supreme Court Case for Scotland Women and to reject the gender redesign case.
“However, even though the judge rejected the case based on the women of Scotland, we have found that if it was not attached to this decision, it would be an agreement with our client and that the need to show that the exclusion was ‘necessary’ to comply with the 2010 Equality Law is a hot discussion problem in the trial.
“More importantly, the judge found that if he has to decide, he found that EBPF’s actions would not be a ‘proportional vehicle to achieve a legitimate purpose’ and that he would determine that Defenders’ secondary case would fail. However, because of the need for the judge, the next step should not be taken.
