There are a few issues these days which seem to get peoples’ passions flaring more than the inclusion of transgender competitors in sporting events. It is a subject that everyone seems to have an opinion on with tales being regaled that someone has seen a video on social media of a 6ft transwoman, with muscles in places most people don’t have places, pounding a naturally born female into a bloody pool on the canvas in a UFC-type fighting contest. Such tales are often accompanied with phrases like ‘the world has gone mad’ or similar such comments.

Such a position as the above would be hard to defend as there would likely be a substantial physical advantage, but what about in other sports where strength and other physical attributes of being born one particular sex do not offer any unfair advantage when that individual has transitioned to the opposite sex?

Whether people like it or not, they have to abide by the law and treating someone less favourably because they have fully transitioned and live their life identifying as a sex that they were not born is unlawful. It is, in principle, no different than not being able to treat someone less favourably because they are gay, black or a Muslim.

As with most legal situations, there are exceptions. The exceptions in relation to transgender people and sports basically state that less favourable treatment based on gender assignment by service providers is permitted in ‘gender-affected activity’ if it is ‘necessary to do so to secure in relation to the activity (a) fair competition or (b) the safety of competitors’

But what if a transgender competitor enjoys success in her sport, not because of any unfair advantage resulting from her previous biological or chemical makeup, but because she has dedicated herself to her craft above and beyond what her peers were prepared to do. In such a circumstance where an unfair advantage cannot be identified, you can be forgiven for thinking that a transgender competitor should not be banned from participating.

This is exactly the situation that Matt Champ’s client, Harriet Haynes (“Harriet”), has found herself in. Harriet has enjoyed success in playing female 8-ball pool and has lived her life as a woman now for many years. Some would put her success down to the fact that she was born male before fully transitioning. However, such an explanation does not give credit to the fact that Harriet practices more than anyone else, installed a table in her house during COVID when everyone else was not playing and has taken up professional coaching, all to improve her game.

It therefore came as something of a shock to Harriet when in August 2023, numerous national and international governing bodies stated that, from the next season onwards (so the 2024 season), only those females who had been born female would be eligible to play in female pool tours and events. No explanation was given, no consultation undertaken. Two of three governing bodies, upon reflection, and intervention from Colman Coyle’s Matt Champ, agreed to reverse their policy. However, one governing body, the English Blackball Pool Federation (“EBPF”) refused to back down.

As a result, Harriet was left with no alternative but to instruct Matt Champ to issue proceedings in the Canterbury County Court seeking a declaration that Harriet’s human rights had been breached by EBPF refusing to allow her to play in female competitions despite her history of doing so previously. Interestingly, EBPF have decided to fight the claim as ‘they believe it is the right thing to do’.

What has changed you might ask? No one seems to know why there is now apparently the sudden need for a generic blanket ban on transgender females in the woman’s game. Indeed, the EBPF, through their lawyers, have confirmed that they did not, and still don’t, have any medical evidence showing any unfair advantage enjoyed by Harriet, or others in her position. Nor were the EBPF seemingly interested that the WPBSA (the professional snooker governing body) and the International Olympic Committee both classified snooker (of which pool is the much simpler cousin) as being a ‘precision sport’ and thus not affected by sex.

Whether the EBPF’s viewpoint stands up to scrutiny remains to be seen but it is respectfully submitted that you do not need to be a legal scholar to see the problems that might present themselves to the defence in due course.

Matt says:

At Colman Coyle, we are committed to assisting our clients to the very best of our ability without fear or favour. We are proud to be working with Harriet on this case and sincerely believe her legal rights have been infringed. We will not stop until our client is made whole and the unlawful discrimination against her stops and are more than prepared to see this through to trial if that is what it takes.

 This is an extremely important case for the trans-community who are, let’s not kid ourselves, a persecuted minority.

Harriet is represented by Senior Associate, Matt Champ who has instructed Hugh Southey KC and Katy Sheridan of Matrix Chambers in what is thought to be the first litigated case in the country relating to the ‘fair competition’ defence under section 195 of the Equality Act 2010.

If you would like any further information then please do not hesitate to contact Matt Champ at matt.champ@colmancoyle.com.