Transgender pool star loses discrimination case as judge explains why ban from competition must stand

A transgender pool player has lost a discrimination case against one of the sport's main organisers in a landmark ruling in the UK.

The English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) banned players who were not born as biologically female from its women's competitions in August 2023.

Professional player Harriet Haynes took the body to court, claiming the exclusion was 'direct discrimination' against her on the grounds of her gender reassignment.

However, in a judgment published on Friday, a court dismissed her claim and said that the ban was the only 'reasonable' way to ensure 'fair competition'. 

Speaking after the ruling, Haynes' representatives said they were 'naturally disappointed' with the decision and are weighing up whether to appeal. 

The judgment is the first to apply the newly established legal definition of a woman as someone who is biologically female, introduced after a Supreme Court decision.

The EBPF previously said that its ladies' events would only be open to those born female, claiming the decision was intended to ensure 'equality and fairness for all'. 

Haynes was surprised by the EBPF's crackdown and did not believe she held an unfair advantage because she went through male pubery. She later told The Independent: '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 in April.

The EBPF said it was delighted with the ruling and that it welcomes transgender players in its 'open' category. It also argued that players who were born male and went through male puberty hold specific physical advantages in cue sports.

According to the body, these include an ability to generate higher break speed, greater hand span to bridge over balls and a longer reach.

A spokesperson said: 'The court found that pool is a game in which men have an advantage over women and that allowing only those born as women to compete in our women's competitions is necessary to secure fair competition.'

In her claim, Haynes said her exclusion from the Kent Women's A pool team had caused her distress, and that she had been subjected to hurtful comments online. 

She also claimed the ban violated the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to respect for an individual's private and family life.

The EBPF, however, said the rule did not discriminate against Haynes on the grounds of gender reassignment as 'she was born male'. They added that 'if she had been a transgender person who was born female, she would not have been excluded'. 

Matt Champ, senior associate at Colman Coyle, who represented 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.'