When the Rules Don’t Make Sense: Bowls England and the Trans Inclusion Contradiction
If trans men can compete in men’s competitions, why are trans women excluded from women’s? The law has something to say about this.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about sports policies and transgender inclusion, and a message I received recently really crystallised something that’s been bothering me about how some organisations are approaching this.
A transgender woman who plays lawn bowls reached out to tell me that Bowls England has stopped trans women playing in ladies’ competitions. Trans men, however, can still play in men’s competitions.
Do you see the problem here?
The Asymmetry That Undermines the Argument
If you’re going to make a blanket exclusion of transgender people from sports, you’d expect it to at least be consistent. The arguments typically put forward for excluding trans women from women’s sport centre on physical advantage, on fairness, on safety. Leave aside for a moment whether those arguments actually hold water in a sport like lawn bowls, where we’re talking about precision and skill rather than physical strength or speed.
The real issue here is that Bowls England has created a policy that includes trans men but excludes trans women. If physical advantage were truly the concern, you’d think the organisation would be consistent in its approach. Trans men competing in men’s competitions would be the “easier” inclusion by that logic. Trans men may be taking testosterone as part of their transition, competing against cisgender men who also have testosterone. Trans women, by contrast, typically have testosterone levels lower than cisgender women, particularly if they’ve been on hormone therapy for any length of time.
The inconsistency tells us something important: this isn’t really about fairness or science. It’s about who society is comfortable with and who it isn’t.
What the Law Actually Says
After the Supreme Court ruling last year, there’s been a lot of misunderstanding about what organisations can and can’t do. I wrote about this in detail when discussing the Sandie Peggie case, and the principles apply here too.
The Supreme Court did not say that all trans women must be excluded from female spaces or competitions. What it did was clarify some language around the definition of sex in the Equality Act. That’s it. It certainly didn’t give organisations a green light to make blanket exclusions without proper justification.
Under the Equality Act, both sex and gender reassignment are protected characteristics. If an organisation wants to treat someone differently because of their gender reassignment status, they need to show three things:
A legitimate aim they’re trying to achieve
That the exclusion is a proportionate way of achieving that aim, and
That they’ve considered the impact on all protected groups, not just one.
This proportionality test is crucial. What’s the impact of including trans women in women’s lawn bowls? What’s the impact of excluding them? Is exclusion really the only way to achieve fair competition, or has the organisation simply taken the path of least resistance in response to pressure from a vocal minority?
What Can Trans Women Do?
If you’re a trans woman affected by policies like this, you’re not without options.
Document everything. Keep records of the policy, any communications you’ve had with the organisation, and how the exclusion has affected you.
Ask for the justification. Write to Bowls England and ask them to explain the legitimate aim behind their policy, why excluding trans women is proportionate, and how they justify the asymmetry between their treatment of trans men and trans women. A policy that can’t withstand basic scrutiny is a policy that may not survive a legal challenge.
Seek support. Organisations like Gendered Intelligence and GIRES may be able to offer advice and connect you with others who’ve faced similar situations. The LGBT Foundation has done excellent work on sports inclusion.
Consider formal action. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against, you may have grounds to make a complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or to pursue a claim through the employment tribunal system if this affects your work, or through civil action if it doesn’t.
Talk about it. Sometimes the most powerful thing we can do is share our stories. The more visibility these issues have, the harder it becomes for organisations to make poorly-reasoned policies and expect no one to notice.
The Bigger Picture
What frustrates me about cases like this is that they represent organisations taking the easy route rather than the right one. It’s simpler to exclude a minority group than to develop thoughtful policies that balance everyone’s needs. It’s easier to bow to pressure from those who shout the loudest than to stand firm on principles of inclusion and dignity.
Lawn bowls. We’re talking about lawn bowls. Not elite athletics. Not contact sports. A game that people of all ages and abilities play for enjoyment, for community, for the love of the sport. The idea that a trans woman rolling a bowl down a green poses some kind of threat or unfair advantage is, frankly, absurd.
The Sandie Peggie case made clear that organisations can’t simply exclude trans people “just in case” or because one person complained. They need proper policies, legitimate aims, and proportionate responses. Bowls England would do well to reconsider whether their current approach meets that standard.
What do you think? Have you experienced similar exclusions in sports or other areas of life? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
🫶