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.
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 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.
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.
Source: Transgender pool player loses discrimination claim after being barred from women’s tournaments