TRANS women will be banned from playing women's cricket under new rules after the "win for common sense" Supreme Court ruling. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has announced changes to its regulations regarding eligibility for transgender players in women’s and girls’ cricket. With immediate effect, only those assigned female at birth will be eligible to play in women’s cricket and girls’ cricket matches. It comes after the FA announced it will also be banning transgender women from women's football clubs next season. Bosses are facing demands to apologise for the treatment of women and girls forced to compete against biological men — and punished if they complained. The decision affects around 20 trans footballers registered at grassroots level. Supreme court ruling Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that trans women are not legally women in a move hailed as a "victory for common sense". The FA - who previously allowed trans women to compete in women's leagues - have now said they're "changing their policy". In a statement yesterday, it said: "As the governing body of the national sport, our role is to make football accessible to as many people as possible, operating within the law and international football policy defined by UEFA and FIFA. "Our current policy, which allows transgender women to participate in the women's game, was based on this principle and supported by expert legal advice. "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 on the 16 April means that we will be changing our policy. Transgender women will no longer be able to play in women's football in England, and this policy will be implemented from 1 June 2025. "We understand that this will be difficult for people who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify, and we are contacting the registered transgender women currently playing to explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved in the game." In April, the Supreme Court confirmed the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex". The landmark judgement was hailed as a "victory for common sense" by top politicians and feminist campaigners. And the PM, who has previously said "trans women are women", finally admitted that a woman is an "adult female" after years of woke dithering. In a statement on Thursday, Downing Street added that "biology matters" in women's sport. Asked about the FA's decision, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said on Thursday: "We have been clear that biology matters when it comes to women's sport and that everyone should be compliant with the law. "We will continue to work to ensure women and girls across the country can enjoy sports, and we will continue to support the bodies to protect the integrity, fairness and safety of the game." He added: "It's up to the individual sporting bodies to set their own policies." It comes after Kemi Badenoch labelled Sir Keir a "weather vane who twists in the wind" as she claimed he "doesn't have the balls" to express his views on gender. And Harry Potter author Rowling hit out against the PM branding him a "coward". Last month, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, who chairs the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, suggested that clubs at professional and grassroots level must respect the Supreme Court's ruling that female-only spaces are protected on the basis of biology. Asked if it was now simple that trans women cannot take part in women's sport, Baroness Falkner told the BBC: "Yes, it is." Lord Seb Coe, the president of World Athletics hailed the court for having "produced clarity". He said: "Most importantly, I think it really does support women, in places for them that really matter. "It is really important that we continue to protect the integrity of women's competition." The row over trans women in women’s sports has exploded in recent years, with growing calls to protect fairness for female athletes. Critics say letting biological males compete against women creates an uneven playing field, especially in strength-based sports. In 2022, British Cycling faced fury after allowing trans rider Emily Bridges to race in the women’s category — a move blocked by governing body UCI at the last minute. Swimmer Sharron Davies, who won Olympic silver for Team GB, has been one of the most vocal campaigners against what she calls “female erasure” in sport. She and other female athletes argue their years of hard work have been undermined by rules that favour inclusion over fairness. Several UK sporting bodies, including World Athletics and Swim England, have since tightened rules to reserve elite female competition for biological women only. Supporters of the changes say it’s common sense — and long overdue. Britain's equality watchdog is rushing to rewrite its rulebook after the court ruling shook up the law on sex and gender. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says it’ll urgently update its guidance — as ministers face mounting pressure to spell out what the verdict means for schools, hospitals and workplaces. Baroness Kishwer Falkner, who chairs the EHRC, said the impact of the ruling “cannot be overstated” and vowed a rapid review of the watchdog’s advice to reflect the fresh legal clarity. The equalities chief pledged to crack down on any organisation ignoring the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling. She said the ruling is “enormously consequential” and offers clarity — meaning trans women, even with a Gender Recognition Certificate, can be excluded from women-only spaces if “proportionate”. On sport, she told Radio 4: “Yes, it is” now simple that trans women can’t compete in female categories. She said changing rooms must be based on biological sex, adding: “If a male person is allowed to use a women-only service, it becomes a mixed-sex space.” Baroness Falkner also said the NHS must scrap its 2019 policy on trans patients and follow the ruling, with “no confusion” left about what the law requires.