UK Athletics is going a step further in its trans exclusion by seeking to change government policy

athletes racing
Support us and go ad-free

UK Athletics (UKA) has issued a statement asking the government to change the law relating to transgender athletes. It’s asking to exclude any competitors who were not registered female at birth from women’s competitions at the level of government policy. This goes beyond its current purview.

By contrast, World Athletics has proposed to continue to allow transgender women to compete in the female category at international events. World Athletics’ preferred option is to tighten the sport’s eligibility rules, but still use testosterone limits as the key determining factor. A consultation process is under way with member federations, with a vote taking place in March.

UK Athletics

UK Athletics rejects testosterone suppression as a marker for transgender women’s participation. Instead, it seeks to reserve the female category exclusively for cis women. Further than this, it has argued that the ‘sporting exemption’ introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 doesn’t fully allow the lawful exclusion of trans women.

UKA chairman Ian Beattie said:

It’s specifically the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which states that people with gender recognition certificates have to be treated as female for all purposes. And there’s not an exemption for that for sporting purposes.

It’s fair to say that if we didn’t get a legal change, it would be very difficult for us to go ahead with this policy.

He went on to say that:

Read on...

Ultimately, we’re very keen we all recognise what we’ve got responsibility for – and the government are the only ones who can change legislation.

That’s where we would look for that focus to be set. Certainly I think they’re sympathetic to the approach that we want to take. That has been the feedback that we’ve had.


The ‘sporting exemption’ in the Equality Act (EA) specifically:

 makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise.

On top of this, the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) also affirms that:

A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) [fair competition and safety] is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act.

Essentially, both the EA and GRA specifically state that it is lawful to exclude trans women, and this is the decision of the governing bodies of the sports. As such, it seems difficult to pinpoint what exactly Beattie is talking about. Indeed, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was swift to intervene, stating:

We reached out to UK Athletics and offered to discuss the legal advice underpinning their statement. We are disappointed that they have chosen to publicise their inaccurate advice and we would urge all organisations to consult our website which explains equality law and how it relates to these issues.

It is down to the individual sporting bodies to regulate whether trans women’s participation in their given sports is deemed safe and fair. This is already well within their power. Instead, UKA wants to reach beyond its current rights to govern its own events and change UK policy wholesale.

Where are the elite trans athletes?

There is no denying that transgender participation in sport is in the public eye right now. Swimming and rugby governing bodies have recently introduced their own de-facto bans on trans participation. Notably, this comes against a backdrop of a transphobic backlash in wider politics and society.

We might ask whether UKA is acting proportionally in its efforts to change UK law. We can also consider the authenticity of the broader vitriol against transgender athletes as a whole. It seems suspicious, at the least, that these questions come alongside rapidly increasing hatred toward to trans community in general.

There is a simple problem we might consider. The Olympic Games is a good example, as it is the world’s foremost sporting competition. Trans people were first permitted to compete in the Olympics in 2004, provided they’d undergone gender-confirming surgeries. This was later recognised as discriminatory, as it essentially required sterilisation in order to compete. The guidelines were changed in 2015 to instead require testosterone suppression in trans women. This is the same test that UKA argues is unfit for purpose.

At the Tokyo 2020 Games, 11,656 athletes competed. According to the UK government’s most recent survey, around 0.5% of the UK population is transgender. Assuming, for the moment, that the same is roughly true for the rest of the world, we have a glaring issue. Over 50 – that is, 0.5% of 11,656 – elite transgender athletes are missing. Instead, three trans athletes competed, and just one medalled.


UKA clearly believes the threat of trans women’s participation is so great that it requires the government to change the law to prevent it. However, when we look closer, the opposite is true. Trans people are already under-represented in elite sport, and UKA’s proposed ban can only exacerbate the situation.

Featured image via William Warby/Wikimedia Commons, resized to 770*403

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to have my opinion heard as part of Swim England’s (AKA the ASA) gathering of evidence when they were reviewing their transgender policy. The point I tried to reinforce was that they had to have a problem before they could fix it. As far as I am aware there is not currently a problem in any sport that is a result of transgender women taking part when they have met the guidelines as laid down by the IOC.

    2. Sport is inherently massively unfair, biased as it is towards those with genetic advantages – longer legs, naturally gaining more muscle mass, and many other – and class advantages such as private education and wealthy parents. For sporting organisations to single out transwomen as somehow differently unfair to cis athletes simply betrays such organisations’ hatred for transwomen and their ignorance of, or refusal to admit, the vast array of other unfairnesses in their sports.

    3. It seems strange that there are still separate events based on gender.
      You could have all genders compete in the same event and then note who the fastest/strongest/etc. athletes were and their current genders (as if it matters).
      For example, we don’t have separate marathons for different genders, why do we still have separate events in athletics?

      This current hysteria about trans athletes reminds me of the hysteria that was evident when women wanted to be able to compete in sporting events.
      Eventually, they were accepted. Progress will happen.

    4. UK Athletics are perfectly correct; any male that has gone through puberty has an advantage in sports, even if he later reduces testosterone levels to “female” limits. In some sports such as rugby this would be dangerous for women, in others it just gives an “unfair” advantage.

    5. Ther is no excuse for this, this behaviour is authoritarian. Even the argument that biological is the determining factor in the fairness of sports, ignores the fact that event hosts and the ones who run events should make judgements on the fairness of THIER OWN EVENTS

      Everyone is asking whats fair but no one is asking why the government should be applying laws to how recreational events are supposed to be played. The government is stepping out of it’s place every time it tells sporting organisations how to run events as part of thier petty hate campaign.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.