English and Scottish FAs ban men from women’s football

Women in England and Scotland will no longer be forced to play football against men who identify as female, following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the definition of ‘woman’.

The English Football Association announced that only true women will be allowed to play in women’s matches from 1 June. In Scotland, a revised policy for competitive matches is set to be introduced at the beginning of the 2025/26 season.

Currently, men in both countries can compete in women’s football on a case-by-case basis involving the reduction of testosterone levels.

‘Irreversible’

Writing in The Daily Mail, former Olympian Sharron Davies MBE said: “Women and girls should never have had to fight for their right to play football, run, swim – whatever their choice of sport is – in a fair and safe way.

“Yet it has taken a Supreme Court judgment for public bodies and sporting organisations to wake up to what I and other campaigners have been saying for years. That it is not fair nor right to allow men to compete in women’s sport.”

She emphasised: “It is a fact that the impact of testosterone cannot be reversed. It is a fact that men have better bone density. It is a fact that men are built differently from women. It is a fact that they punch harder and are stronger than women.”

“So allowing men to compete against women immediately puts women and girls at a disadvantage both physically and mentally. And yet there are still competitive sports in the UK that allow male-born athletes to compete against women. ”

Supreme Court

In their statements, both Football Associations admitted that they decided to revise their policies in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the definition of ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.

Last month, the UK’s highest court unanimously ruled in favour of For Women Scotland’s appeal against Scottish Government guidance that allows men who identify as female to take women-only positions on company boards.

Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler – supported by Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones – explained that “interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex”, rather than biological sex, would “cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way”.

“Similar confusion and impracticability arise in the operation of provisions relating to single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces.”