What does the UK Supreme Court ruling mean for sport?

After being asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the words “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on April 16th. Lord Hodge told the court: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms … refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

This ruling represents a significant setback. The decision defines ‘sex’ exclusively as the biological sex assigned at birth, explicitly excluding trans individual from legal recognition of their gender identity. The judges noted “confusion and impracticability” had arisen, so the ruling has been justified on the basis that it would bring “clarity and confidence for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs”.

Where competitive sport is concerned, the inclusion of transgender athletes in elite women’s competitions has been a consistent topic of debate, with many governing bodies tightening eligibility rules in recent years. In 2022, British Triathlon became the first British sporting body to establish an open category in which transgender athletes can compete. In 2023, British Cycling banned transgender women from the women’s category after Emily Bridges, the country’s high-profile transgender cyclist, was stopped from competing in her first elite women’s race.

The English FA, the Scottish FA, England Netball, and the England and Wales cricket board have banned transgender women from women’s teams

Following the UK Supreme Court ruling, the eight-ball pool’s professional body has become the first sports organisation to revise its policies. The Ultimate Pool Group (UPG) has banned transgender women from its female category. However, UPG says eligibility for its Open category remains unchanged.

Similarly, and perhaps more controversially, the English FA, the Scottish FA and England Netball have banned transgender women from women’s teams. The England and Wales Cricket Board have since followed suit. The FA’s announcement came only a month after it had said it would continue to allow transgender women, to play in the women’s game as long as they reduced their testosterone levels to 5 nmol/L for at least 12 months.

Adding to the exclusion of trans women, the World Athletics governing
body has become the first global sporting institution to introduce DNA tests

In their statement, the FA said: “This is a complex subject, and our position has always been that if there was a material change in law, science, or the operation of the policy in grassroots football, then we would review it and change it if necessary… The Supreme Court’s ruling means that we will be changing our policy … and this policy will be implemented from 1 June 2025”. There are currently 20 transgender women who will be affected by this rule change, and the FA has promised that they will reach out to them to “explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved”.

A Downing Street spokesperson said that while it was up to each sport to set its policies, they had to comply with the law: “We have been clear that biology matters when it comes to women’s sport … and we will continue to ensure women and girls across the country can enjoy sports and we will continue to support bodies to protect the integrity, fairness and safety of the game.”

Adding to the exclusion of trans-women from sports, the World Athletics governing body—led by the British Olympian Sebastian Coe— has become the first global sporting institution to introduce DNA tests for elite female athletes, saying: “We will doggedly protect the female category and do whatever is necessary to do it, and we’re not just talking about it,” in a press conference following the 2025 World Athletics Indoor Championships in Nanjing, China.

While current International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines delegate decisions to individual sports federations, the British court ruling could set a precedent that reshapes international policy. At the Tokyo Olympics in 2021, weightlifter Laurel Hubbard became the first openly transgender athlete to compete at an Olympic Games in a different category than in which they were born. Incoming President Kirsty Coventry is expected to face growing pressure over transgender participation. She has thus far taken a conservative approach, calling for federations to work together to develop a common framework. “I do not support transgender athletes competing against female athletes in the Olympics – it is unfair,” she said. “Ensuring fairness in women’s sport is essential. Transgender women have an inherent physical advantage that can reduce equal opportunities for biological women.”

The topic of gender identity has faced similar waves of politicisation in the US, as President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports, which bans transgender women from competing in women’s categories unless they transitioned before puberty. The order could conflict with the LA28 Host City Agreement, which commits to inclusive access for all qualified athletes. Yet, despite mounting political pressure, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee has said it will not adopt a specific policy for transgender athletes at the 2028 Los Angeles Games. “It would not be appropriate for us to take such a position,” said USOPC chief executive Sarah Hirshland, stressing that eligibility rules are the domain of international federations and national bodies.

Some trans people felt devastated by a judgment they fear will be weaponised against their rights

While equality law now defines sex biologically, it does not determine how public life will proceed. Moving forward, the question lies in whether the UK can adapt to shifting norms without retreating into division. Lawful exclusion, even in the name of balance, can lead to lives lived apart, as action in the name of being “gender neutral” risks creating a “separate but equal” trans existence. The danger in such actions invites a third, liminal identity, where trans identities neither fit nor integrate.

Many women’s rights advocates saw the ruling as a firm defence of sex-based rights, while several trans people felt devastated by a judgment they fear will be weaponised against their rights. The legal view may be clear, but how it plays out in practice is anything but. Can society protect sex-based rights while integrating trans people into public life? So far, developmets have not been favourable for transgender women. Recent policy shifts indicate a narrowing of opportunities for transgender women.