It has been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that the term “woman” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, and while the legal language was measured, the consequences to women’s sports are proving significant and swift.
On May 2, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) announced it would ban transgender women from all levels of women’s cricket, citing the need to align with the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
Just days later, on May 9, the Football Association (FA) followed suit, banning transgender women from women’s football at all levels, including grassroots.
Transgender women currently playing will be barred from June 1.
This wave of policy change marks a pivotal moment in British sport.
What began as a legal clarification has triggered a nationwide reset in eligibility rules, from elite cricket to Sunday league football.
What did the Supreme Court say?
On April 16, the Supreme Court ruled that “sex” refers to biological sex, not gender identity – even if someone holds a Gender Recognition Certificate.
This means that trans women may lawfully be excluded from women’s sport categories if doing so is a proportionate means of ensuring fairness or safety (under Section 195 of the Act).
The ruling doesn’t mandate exclusion, but it gives sporting bodies firm legal ground to do so without fear of discrimination claims.
How does it affect elite women’s sport?
The FA had only just updated its transgender participation policy on April 11, allowing trans women to continue playing if they could demonstrate suppressed testosterone levels and undergo match observation.
Following the Supreme Court ruling on April 16, they scrapped this approach entirely, announcing that only individuals born biologically female would be eligible for the female category.
The FA is now offering affected players free therapy through Sporting Chance, acknowledging the emotional impact on those “who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify”.
The ECB, which had already banned transgender women from elite tiers of women’s cricket, is now expected to extend that ban to all levels.
On May 9, England Netball also announced new eligibility guidelines, introducing three participation categories: female (reserved for those born female), male, and mixed.
Transgender women will no longer be eligible for the female category from September 1.
That same day, the Scottish Football Association also banned transgender women from women’s football.
The governing body for 8-ball pool announced it has revised its eligibility rules on April 24, stating women’s events are restricted to individuals who were “biologically born female”.
On May 8, Basketball England also released a statement claiming to review its transgender policy following the ruling and ongoing community consultation.
How has the public reacted?
For some, the Supreme Court ruling and these policy changes are long overdue.
Former Olympian Sharron Davies called the FA’s decision “great news for the safety and fairness of all our girls and women in football”.
Campaign groups like Sex Matters and the Women’s Rights Network applauded what they see as a return to sex-based fairness.
But for trans players and their advocates, the change has been devastating.
On May 2, 2025, Anaya Bangar, a transgender cricketer and daughter of former Indian cricketer Sanjay Bangar, publicly responded to the ECB’s decision.
She said: “As someone who’s given her heart to this game, this feels personal. I’m not just a trans girl. I’m a cricketer.”
Campaign lead for Football v Transphobia, Natalie Washington said: “The people I know that are talking about this are saying ‘well, that’s it for football for me’.”
Kick It Out, an anti-discrimination group, warned that the ruling and the bans may fuel a rise in transphobic abuse, urging solidarity with the trans community.
What is the FA’s reasoning?
The FA insists it had no ideological motive, only a legal obligation to amend its policy in light of the court’s ruling.
Sources say the FA’s lawyers warned it could be legally vulnerable to challenge from female players if it didn’t act.
Now that football and cricket, prominent UK sporting bodies, have changed course, others could face intensifying pressure to follow.
Former FA chair, Lord David Triesman said: “The FA has finally seen sense. It would have been the utmost foolishness to disregard the Supreme Court.”
Some argue it isolates a tiny number of trans women for whom sport was a vital source of community and identity.
The debate is unlikely to end here and eyes are now turning to international organisations to see how they will respond to this precedent.
