A transgender pool player has lost a discrimination claim against one of the sport’s main organisers over its decision to ban those who were not born female from its women’s competitions and teams.
Professional player Harriet Haynes took the English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) to court over its introduction of new rules excluding anybody who was not assigned female at birth from its ladies’ events. In her claim, she said the move was “direct discrimination” against her on the grounds of her gender reassignment.
But in a judgment published on Friday, a court dismissed her claim and said it was satisfied exclusion was the only “reasonable” way to ensure “fair competition”. Speaking following the judgement, Ms Haynes’s representatives said they were “naturally disappointed” with the court’s decision and considering whether to appeal.
The landmark ruling is the first to apply the newly established legal definition of a woman as someone who is biologically female, which was brought in after a Supreme Court decision in April.
Speaking to The Independent previously, Ms Haynes said she was left stunned by the initial decision from the EBPF, which restricted her from competing in eight-ball games.
In August 2023, the body announced that ladies’ events would only be open to people who were born female, in a move it said was intended to make sure that the game was played with “equality and fairness for all”.
But Ms Haynes, who said she did not consider she had an unfair advantage because she went through male puberty, told this publication: “All I’ve ever wanted is to be able to play like any other woman.”
Handing down his judgment, His Honour Judge Parker concluded that pool is a “gender-affected activity” and that excluding those born as male from the female category was necessary to “secure fair competition”.
He also said the claim “could not survive” the Supreme Court’s decision, which was announced a few days after the end of the trial.
In her claim, Ms Haynes, who has a gender recognition certificate, said her exclusion from the Kent Women’s A pool team was “direct discrimination” due to her gender reassignment. She outlined how she had suffered “distress and upset” following the rule change, as well as a slew of “hurtful” remarks on social media.
She also claimed the policy violated several clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including article eight, which outlines the right to respect for an individual’s private and family life. The claim added that her “identity of playing pool in the female category” had been “taken from her”.
But representatives for the EBPF argued the rule did not discriminate against her on the grounds of gender reassignment as “she was born male”, adding “if she had been a transgender person who was born female, she would not have been excluded”. They also argued that pool was a “gender-affected activity” which, following evidence from experts, the court agreed on.
Judge Parker said he had considered the Supreme Court’s interpretation that basing the definition of a woman on biological sex would not remove important protections for trans people under the Equality Act. He said it was therefore “inconceivable” that the Supreme Court would see this as in conflict with protections under the ECHR.
In the judgment, he wrote: “There is no reasonable alternative way of achieving fair competition short of exclusion,” adding: “The claim fails at the first hurdle because there has been no gender reassignment discrimination. The claim must therefore be dismissed.”
It comes after the Football Association announced transgender women will be banned from playing women’s football in England from next season. The governing body said its decision followed the Supreme Court’s judgment on the legal definition of a woman.
Matt Champ, senior associate at Colman Coyle, who represented Ms Haynes, said: "We and our client are naturally disappointed with the court’s decision that it was bound to follow the much-criticised Supreme Court case of For Women Scotland and dismiss our client’s case for gender reassignment discrimination.
“However, whilst the judge dismissed the case based upon For Women Scotland, we take some solace in the fact that he found that, if he was not bound by that decision, he would have agreed with our client and found that the need to show that exclusion was ‘necessary’ so as to comply with the Equality Act 2010 would have been on the defendants, that was a hotly contested issue at trial.
“More importantly, the judge also found that if he were required to decide it, he would have found that the EBPF’s actions were not capable of being a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ and so the defendants’ secondary case would have failed. But, obviously because of the judge’s reliance on For Women Scotland, the claim still had to be dismissed. We are reflecting on the judgment and our next steps which will include whether or not we appeal."
Aspiring CBP officer sues after being rejected over ‘religious’ ayahuasca use
Muslim women say hijab is empowering as half of Britons believe they are ‘pressured’
Transgender medic row could be viewed as hate crime, consultant tells tribunal
‘Deeply loved’ Brother and sister who drowned during family holiday in Spain named
Supreme Court to deliver verdict on car finance mis-selling case: Live updates
Storm Floris set to batter UK with ‘unseasonably strong’ 85mph winds, Met Office says
