A Transgender The pool player has lost a discrimination claim against one of the main organizers of the game, who is on his decision to ban people who were not women from their women’s competitions and teams.
Professional player Harrott Hens Took English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) to court at its inception New rules except anyone Which was not handed over women at birth from the events of her women. In his claim, he said that this step was “direct discrimination” against him based on his gender revaluation.
But in a judgment published on Friday, a court rejected his claim and said it was a satisfied exclusion that “fair competition” was the only “appropriate” way to ensure. Speaking after the verdict, representatives of Ms. Hiss said that they were “naturally disappointed” by the court’s decision and considering that the appeal be made.
The landmark is the first to implement the ruling new establishment Legal definition of a woman As someone is a biologically woman, who was brought after the other Supreme Court’s decision In April.
Talk to Independent Earlier, Ms. Hens said she was shocked by the initial decision of EBPF, which had banned her from competing in the game of eight balls.
In August 2023, the body announced that women’s events would be open to only those who were born, in a step, the intended to ensure that the game was played with “equality and fairness for all”.
But Ms. Hens, who said that she was not believed that she had an undue advantage because the male had gone through puberty, told the publication: “I ever wanted to be able to play like any other woman.”
Handing over his decision, his honor Judge Parker concluded that the pool is a “gender-affected activity” and that people born as men of female category were required for “safe fair competition”.
He also said that this claim could “not survive” from the Supreme Court’s decision, which was declared a few days after the end of the trial.
In her claim, Ms. Hens, who has a gender recognition certificate, stated that her exclusion from the Kent Women’s A Pool Team was “direct discrimination” due to her gender re -evaluation. He underlined how he faced “crisis and upset” after the change of rules, as well as a group of “hurt” comments on social media.
He also claimed that the policy violated several sections of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECR), including Article eight, which underlines a person’s right to respect for a person’s personal and family life. The claim stated that her “identity of playing pool in the women’s category” was “taken”.
But the representatives of the EBPF argued that the rule did not discriminate against her based on gender revaluation, as she was “born”, “If she was a transgender man who was born a woman, she was not out”. He also argued that the pool was a “gender-affected activity”, after the evidence of experts, the court agreed.
Judge Parker said that he had considered the interpretation of the Supreme Court that the basis of the definition of a woman on biological sex would not provide significant protection to Trans people under the Equality Act. He said that it was “out of understanding” that the Supreme Court would see it in a struggle with security under the ECHR.
In the judgment, he wrote: “There is no appropriate alternative way to get a lesser competition of exclusion,” saying: “The claim fails in the first barrier as no gender re -evaluation has been discriminated against. So the claim should be rejected.”
This comes after the announcement of the Football Association, there will be transgender women Ban on playing women football From the next season in England. The governing body said that her decision followed the Supreme Court’s decision on the legal definition of a woman.
The Matt Champion, senior colleague of the Coleman Cuckoo, who represented Ms. Hens, said: “We and our clients are naturally disappointed with the decision of the court that it was bound to follow a very critical Supreme Court case for women’s Scotland and to dismiss our customer’s case for gender revaluation discrimination.
“However, whenever the judge dismissed the case for the female Scotland, we take some consolation in the fact that he found that, if he was not bound by that decision, he would agree with our client and found that it needed to show that the exclusion was necessary, so that the Equity Act 2010 could be complied, it was a hot issue.
“More importantly, the judge also found that if he needed to decide, he found that the EBPF tasks ‘were not able to be a proportional tool to achieve a valid purpose’ and hence the secondary case of defendants failed.
