Sports bodies threatened with legal action if they continue to allow men to compete in women’s sport

  • Sharron Davies’ Women’s Sports Union and ADF International formally warn 10 sports bodies they are in breach of law by failing to protect women’s and girls’ sport from transgender ideology
  • Sports bodies warned, in light of For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling, that allowing men to compete in women’s sport is unlawful  

LONDON (23 April 2026) – Ten sports bodies have today been threatened with legal action if they fail to protect women’s sport from transgender ideology, in formal warnings from former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies and legal experts.

The letters were sent by Olympic medallist and Conservative peer Baroness Davies MBE and Tracy Edwards MBE—the world-renowned sailor who skippered Maiden, the first all-female crew to ever sail around the world—of the Women’s Sports Union, and legal advocacy organisation ADF International.  

They warned the 10 bodies (full list at the bottom of the press release), including the Football Association of Wales, Swim England and British Gymnastics, that their policies in 11 sports which they govern are in breach of the law and requested confirmation of the immediate steps the bodies will take to remedy the situation.

While many governing bodies changed their policies to protect women’s sport following the landmark For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers Supreme Court ruling last year—which unanimously held that “woman” refers to biological sex in the Equality Act—the sports bodies threatened with legal action today still allow males to compete in female categories.

The letters warned: “Any governing body that continues to permit biological males to compete in the female category contravenes the Equality Act 2010 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This exposes the organisation to immediate and substantial legal liability.”

The letters explained that Section 195 of the Equality Act and draft guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) require sports bodies to prevent males from participating in women’s and girls’ sport, to ensure safe and fair competition.

While most parts of the Equality Act do not apply in Northern Ireland, the letter to the Irish Football Association (IFA) (the governing body for football in Northern Ireland) explained that the For Women Scotland ruling is still binding across the UK.

The judgement is at the very least “highly persuasive” in interpreting Northern Ireland’s unique equality legislation and the IFA has a legal obligation to protect women’s sport categories.

The letters pointed out the safeguarding risks of allowing males to use female changing rooms, highlighted the ineradicable physical advantages of biological males, and warned about the risk of discrimination claims by female athletes “whose opportunities and achievements are displaced or diminished” and of “increased insurance and tort liability from elevated injury risk”.

The letters concluded: “If active steps are not taken to ensure that the issues raised in this correspondence are satisfactorily resolved, and women and girls engaging with your organisation remain exposed to these risks even in light of the clarified legal position, we reserve the right to take further steps, including litigation, to protect their interests.

“Biological sex is not a negotiable category; it is the essential foundation for safeguarding women and girls and preserving fair competition.”

Last month, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced in a new policy that only biological females would be eligible to compete in women’s categories in IOC events. The IOC said: “To ensure fairness, and to protect safety, particularly in contact sports, eligibility should therefore be based on biological sex.”

Earlier this month, the Darts Regulation Authority banned men from competing in women’s tournaments, accepting that darts is a sex affected sport, in which the women’s category must be protected to ensure fairness. 

Last week, Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said EHRC guidance on protecting women’s spaces would not be published until after Scottish and Welsh elections on May 7, despite the fact that the draft guidance was submitted for review last September.

The delay was criticised by Baroness Falkner, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Reem Alsalem, the UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, who said the guidance should be published “without further delay”.

Women’s Sports Union CEO, Olympic medallist and Conservative peer Sharron Davies MBE said:

“It is a true scandal that men are still allowed to compete against women in sport, a year after the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling. Failing to protect women’s sport from males who claim to be female eradicates fairness in competition and presents extreme safeguarding concerns, all in the name of a false ideology.

“I have heard horror stories from parents whose girls have been exposed to extremely inappropriate and harmful situations, due to the failure to protect exclusive female sport categories and changing facilities. All sports bodies must act now to stop the risk of these terrible situations happening again in the future.

“Some organisations have merely acted to protect sport at the elite level, while allowing men to compete against women at the amateur level. This is unacceptable—all women who play sport must be able to do so in a safe and fair environment. If they cannot, many women will simply opt out of sport. Women’s sport must be protected at all levels and the importance of this is underlined by the fact that professional female athletes are drawn from the amateur pool.

“Today, we put 10 sports bodies that fail to recognise biological reality on notice. If they don’t act to do the right thing, we will not hesitate to pursue all legal options.”

Barrister and Director of Advocacy for ADF International Robert Clarke said:

“Today, we sent a formal warning to 10 sport bodies that their failure to protect women’s and girls’ sport is a serious breach of their legal obligations.

“The fight against gender ideology’s harmful effect on women’s sport and safety is a global one, and this case is the latest front in that battle. We are serious about this work as an organisation. In the United States, ADF is litigating two cases in the Supreme Court to protect women’s sport.

“We are just as committed to protecting fair and safe competition in the United Kingdom. We will not hesitate to pursue all legal options, should these sport bodies not act to bring their policies in line with the law and biological reality.”

Tracy Edwards MBE—the world-renowned sailor who skippered Maiden, the first all-female crew to ever sail around the world—of the Women’s Sports Union, said:

“When I stood outside the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 as For Women Scotland won their case confirming the meaning of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 is defined as ‘biological sex’, I celebrated the return of sanity. Little did I know that a year later we would still be fighting for the female category in sport, and that over 30 UK sports governing bodies would be shirking their responsibility to women and girls.

“Sharron and I set up the Women’s Sports Union to ‘support, protect and grow female participation in sport’ but we knew that getting males out of the female category would be job number one. I have written to the RYA on a number of occasions and the disappointment I feel in their reluctance to protect women and girls is profound. I have spent my sailing career promoting and facilitating women and girls into sailing and yet the misogyny 37 years after ‘Maiden’ hasn’t gone away, it has just changed shape.”

 

Ensuring fairness and safety in women’s and girls’ sport

The letters explained: “In light of the ruling in For Women Scotland and the scientific and sporting consensus, it is now well-established: male puberty confers enduring, irreversible physiological advantages.

“These include greater skeletal size and limb length, higher bone density and structural strength, significantly increased muscle mass and upper-body strength, superior aerobic capacity and cardiovascular output, and enhanced speed and explosive power (typically producing performance gaps of 10–30%, and up to 50% in strength-dominant disciplines, such as boxing where male punching power is on average 162% greater than female).”

Section 195 of Equality Act 2010 and draft EHRC guidance

Section 195 of the Equality Act 2010 authorises governing bodies to maintain separate categories for men and women in any sex-affected activity, namely any sport in which the average physical strength, stamina or physique of one sex places competitors of the other at a disadvantage.

Chapter 13 of the draft EHRC Code of Practice (2025 consultation) states that in sex-affected activities under Section 195 organisers may—and where physiological differences produce competitive disadvantage or safety risks, should—confine the female category to biological females.

The position has been applied by the courts. In Haynes v. The English Blackball Pool Federation [2025] EWCC 50, the Court dismissed a discrimination claim filed by a biological male after exclusion from female pool competitions.

Relying on For Women Scotland, the Court ruled that exclusion on biological-sex grounds was lawful and proportionate to protect fair competition in a sex-affected activity. The judgment confirmed that pool is sex-affected due to average male advantages, citing greater male strength and reach, that the threshold does not require “major” disparities, and that the analysis applies beyond stereotypically strength-based sports.

 

Full list of sport bodies to which a letter was sent:

  1. Football Association of Wales
  2. Irish Football Association (governing body for football in Northern Ireland)
  3. British Powerlifting
  4. Swim England (which governs both diving and water polo)
  5. British Gymnastics  
  6. Royal Yachting Association
  7. Parkrun
  8. British Baseball Federation
  9. BaseballSoftballUK
  10. Rounders England

Read the full letter to Parkrun:

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

(Pictured: Tracy Edwards and Sharron Davies, Sharron Davies, Tracy Edwards, Robert Clarke)

Ugandan bill to establish Sharia courts sparks urgent religious freedom concerns 

  • Proposed bill would subject all Ugandans, including Christians and other non-Muslims to Islamic personal law, in addition to preventing conversion from Islam, posing grave threats to religious freedom.  
  • International religious freedom advocates call on Uganda’s parliament to halt passage of the bill, citing severe violations of human rights, including grave implications for women and girls. 

KAMPALA (7 APRIL)—A bill in Uganda that would establish a nationwide system of Sharia courts—known in Uganda as “Qadhis courts”—is sparking urgent international concerns over freedom of religion, as lawmakers push to fast-track its passage before Parliament dissolves on 24 April 2026.  

The Qadhis Courts Bill, formally published in Uganda’s Gazette at the end of February, would radically change the Ugandan court system. Under the bill, a parallel system of Sharia courts would have mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction over personal law matters such as marriage, divorce, custody, and inheritance for all Muslim marriages, as well as drawing in Christians and other non-Muslims in some circumstances. The bill is expected to be formally introduced and moved into committee imminently, with supporters pushing for its passage before 24 April 2026. 

The bill raises serious concerns that some Ugandans will be forced to adjudicate cases in a court system that does not recognize their faith or legal rights. 

“Uganda’s proposed Sharia courts bill would subject Christians and other non-Muslims to Islamic law, while undermining fundamental rights—especially for women, children, and religious converts.”

- Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International

“Uganda’s proposed Sharia courts bill would subject Christians and other non-Muslims to Islamic law, while undermining fundamental rights—especially for women, children, and religious converts,” said Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International.  

“The Ugandan Qadhis Courts Bill should not proceed within the Parliament, and it is imperative that both international and Ugandan actors oppose it. The proposed bill’s passage would represent a dangerous expansion of Sharia law into Sub-Saharan Africa at a time when Christian persecution is growing.”

Restrictions on Conversion and Other Violations

Because the proposed Qadhis courts would apply Sharia law, which does not recognize conversion from Islam to another religion, Muslim individuals who seek to convert into Christianity or other religions would likely be prevented from doing so. 

“The right to choose and change your religion is firmly recognized in international law. Uganda would be in clear violation of international law should Sharia courts be established across the country given the severely problematic implications for religious conversion,” stated Zorzi. 

Further, the mandatory and exclusive nature of the Qadhis courts’ jurisdiction proposed by the bill would eliminate the ability of a Christian or other non-Muslim to seek justice in the civil court system when there is a family, custody, or inheritance dispute involving a Muslim who pursues a lawsuit within the Qadhis court system.  

Although the proposed bill allows decisions of the Qadhis courts to be appealed to the High Court of Uganda, it requires any such appeal to be heard by a Muslim judge and four Muslim scholars, with no further appeals available. 

Implications for Women and Girls

The mandatory application of Sharia law would legally disadvantage Christian women and girls. The experience of Nigeria highlights this issue. Despite Nigerian law mandating 18 years as the minimum age for marriage, many Sharia courts permit and recognize underage marriage. This has led to the kidnapping, forced conversions, and involuntary marriages of minor Christian girls in Nigeria. The proposed Ugandan Qadhis Courts Bill does not have any provisions addressing such conflicts of law, introducing immense uncertainty and few checks on the Qadhis courts.  

Additionally, under Sharia law, women do not have the same rights under the law as men. This different treatment impacts ultimate decisions concerning divorce and child custody, as well as the weight of a woman’s testimony in court.  

Bill Must Be Rejected to Protect Religious Freedom in Uganda

If the bill is passed, Uganda would not be the first African nation to have Sharia courts, however, the system proposed under Uganda’s Qadhis Courts Bill offers many less protections than similar systems. For instance, the Kenyan Sharia “Kadhis’” courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over non-Muslims, and the Kadhis’ courts are voluntary even for Muslims. Additionally, unlike Uganda’s proposed bill, decisions of Kenya’s Kadhis’ courts are appealable to the secular High Courts, with no special provisions about the High Court’s composition. The Kenyan Kadhis’ courts are also subject to non-discrimination rules for witnesses, to correct for Sharia law’s unequal treatment of the testimony of women and non-Muslims.  

„We are very concerned at the Qadhis Courts Bill, which will require Christians and other non-Muslims to appear before Sharia courts, and formally introduces religious law into our national law,” said Arthur Ayorekire, the Vice President of the Uganda Christian Lawyers’ Fraternity. “We ask all Ugandans to speak out against the passage of the Qadhis Courts Bill. The bill is not necessary and will only lead to legal uncertainty, tensions between religious groups, and potentially will allow extremism to grab a hold in Uganda.„ 

The Uganda Qadhis Courts Bill, as proposed, would create a legal paradigm shift for Uganda and for Africa. The shift markedly increases the risk of religious freedom violations. 

ADF International urges Uganda’s parliamentarians to reject the proposed Qadhis Courts Bill and instead focus legislative efforts on protections that uphold freedom of religion and equal treatment under the law. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Police interrogate Christian pastor arrested for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching, in ongoing criminal investigation

  • Avon and Somerset Police ask Pastor Dia Moodley why he preached in area where he knew Muslims would be present, referring to Bristol city centre
  • Pastor Moodley has not street preached so far during four-month criminal investigation due to risk of further arrest, meaning he has missed both Christmas and run-up to Easter
  • He will street preach today for the first time since his arrest, as he feels it is his Christian duty to do so on day before Easter Sunday

BRISTOL (4 April 2026) – Police interrogated a Bristol-based pastor who was arrested for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while peacefully street preaching, as part of an ongoing four-month criminal investigation.

Pastor Dia Moodley, who was arrested last November for his Christian speech in Broadmead, Bristol, did not street preach over Christmas and, before today, has refrained from doing so in the run-up to Easter, due to the risk of further arrest.

Today, he will street preach for the first time since the arrest, as he feels it is his Christian duty to do so on the day before Easter.

The pastor’s legal defence is supported by ADF International. Earlier this month, the pastor attended a voluntary interview under caution due to the risk of arrest if he did not attend.

During the interview, Avon and Somerset Police officers asked Pastor Moodley questions, which indicated ideological bias and a failure to understand basic Christian beliefs.

For example, according to Pastor Moodley, the police asked why the pastor preached in an area where he knew Muslims would be present, suggesting there is no right to free speech in such areas. In reality, Pastor Moodley was preaching to all people present in the city centre of Bristol.

Also according to the pastor, most of the police questions focused on his comments on transgender ideology and police asked whether he should criticise the ideology as a Christian.

Pastor Moodley was arrested on November 22, 2025 on suspicion of committing a “religiously aggravated” public order offence and “inciting religious hatred” under the Public Order Act 1986, despite the fact that he had merely shared his views in the public square. Read more about the incident here.

This is the second time Avon and Somerset Police have arrested the pastor for his peaceful speech.

In March 2024, he was arrested for the same reason—commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching. The police investigation was later dropped.

Pastor Moodley said: “My experience as a Christian pastor, including the police questioning why I preached in an area where I supposedly knew Muslims would be present, undoubtedly shows there is a real risk of authorities allowing Christianity to be pushed out of public spaces in the UK in favour of allowing Islam or other beliefs to dominate.

“I did not ‘target’ anyone with my speech. I merely preached the Gospel to all people out of love for God and my neighbour. For the police to suggest I cannot do this in areas where Muslims are present sets a very dangerous precedent for free speech.

“Avon and Somerset police have subjected me to an arrest, eight hours in a police cell and a four-month long ongoing criminal investigation for peacefully expressing my views in the public square.

“During an interview under caution, which I only attended because of the risk of further arrest if I did not, the police’s line of questioning showed a clear two-tier bias in favour of Muslim and progressive beliefs, and against my Christian speech.

“The process truly has become the punishment for me. This investigation has effectively prevented me from publicly preaching over Christmas and in the run-up to Easter so far [before today] because of the uncertainty over whether the police consider my entirely lawful speech to be a crime because it offends Muslims and others.

“I consider public preaching to be an essential part of my worship, which the police have de facto inhibited, due to their investigation. There are no Islamic or progressive blasphemy laws in this country, and yet time and time again the police have censored me as if there are. The police should drop this investigation and refrain from censoring me again in the future.”

Pastor Moodley told The Telegraph: “I’ve been arrested for something which is absolutely ludicrous. I did nothing [wrong], but here I am on Saturday going out again to preach during Easter time.

“There’s a fear in my heart and a fear in my congregation that I could be arrested on Sunday morning.”

Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International Jeremiah Igunnubole commented: “The police’s suggestion, in their questioning of Pastor Dia, that the right to free speech does not extend to public spaces where Muslims are present is totally antithetical to the tradition of liberty in Great Britain and the equality of all people under the law.

“Bristol city centre is not a Muslim area or a progressive area in which those worldviews cannot be criticised. Every area in Britain is subject to the rule of law, which includes the protection of the right to freedom of speech. Permitting one group to have a veto over another undermines the principle of equality under the law and reintroduces blasphemy laws through the backdoor.

“DPP v. Coskun showed clearly that there is no blasphemy law in this country. The mere fact that others are offended by expression does not make that expression a crime. Pastor Dia’s fight against censorship and two-tier policing in this case is a battle for the free speech rights of all people in this country.”

With the support of ADF International, Pastor Moodley is considering legal action against the police for the violation of his free speech rights.

Police interrogation

On 10 March, Pastor Moodley attended an interview under caution at an Avon and Somerset Police station. An interview under caution is formal questioning by the police, the answers to which can be used in criminal proceedings.

The pastor read a statement, which referenced an earlier acknowledgement from the police that his public preaching is lawful and that any attempt to restrict it would be disproportionate.

Officers appeared to accept the legality of his conduct, but, according to the pastor, went on to question whether it was appropriate for a Christian to express criticism of transgender ideology and asked why the pastor would go and preach in an area where he knew a certain group of people would be—referring to Muslims.

Past police censorship

After Pastor Moodley’s first arrest in March 2024, the police also unlawfully instructed that his signs, which he used while street preaching, be destroyed. The police have failed to even acknowledge his formal request for compensation for the signs.  

Previously, police tried to censor Pastor Moodley from commenting on any religion besides Christianity while street preaching. Avon and Somerset Police dropped these restrictions and admitted they were “disproportionate” after Pastor Moodley launched a legal challenge with the support of ADF International.  

In March 2025, the pastor was twice threatened with arrest for “breaching the peace”, after preaching about the differences between Christianity and Islam while holding a Quran.  

He was the victim of assault on that occasion by Muslim bystanders and one man even threatened to stab the pastor. The police have not charged any of the individuals who assaulted him. 

The pastor met with the US State Department prior to that incident in March, at a meeting facilitated by ADF International, and spoke about his experience as a victim of censorship in the UK.

Read more about Avon and Somerset’s censorship of Pastor Moodley here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Pastor Dia Moodley, Pastor Moodley being arrested in November 2025

EILMELDUNG: Finnlands Oberster Gerichtshof spricht Parlamentarierin wegen Bibel-Tweet frei, verurteilt sie jedoch separat wegen „Hassrede“ in 20 Jahre alter Kirchenbroschüre

Freispruch für Päivi Räsänens Bibelvers-Tweet von 2019 einstimmig bestätigt; Räsänen und Bischof Juhana Pohjola in einer knappen Entscheidung für die Äußerung ihrer Überzeugungen in einer Jahrzehnte alten Kirchenbroschüre schuldig gesprochen.

Lies weiter