Stonewall Lobby World Rugby

Dr Hilton has been fielding many activist comments since the announcement hit. One of the latest involves an activist denouncing her work because no data was used that was rugby specific and they felt the transwoman data from other studies was not relevant.

Oh. And it wasn’t a transgender person who collated and published the study so it must be clearly transphobic with not possibility it was factual. (Not sure I have enough eye roll emojis to convey the ridiculousness of this).

The community is now getting a great deal of unwanted interest.

Again, they cannot defend it on science so push with the transphobic scientist (and non trans specialist) aspect to discredit as they have always pursued.

There can be no acknowledgement of risks so they would prefer to destroy female sport than have to acknowledge that male bodies do not change and they cannot be women in the same way. It is the same as advocating for the abolishment of the field of psychiatry and for the entire prison system. Because both are not needed for the ideal world they wish to live in.

I would have thought that with their resources they would have commissioned an independent review (even just someone independently looking over the studies presented) as this is a landmark case. It is more than likely that no one with any reputation could come up with an alternative interpretation of the studies. If I was the CEO, it would have been the first thing I did when world rugby released the studies.

There simply is no way out except to appeal emotively.

I can’t imagine the rugby governing bodies being able to get any insurance if they chose to disregard such a painstaking, transparent and thorough review with such unequivocally documented risks. Stonewall seem to have lost their collective minds in taking this line.

TRAs bounce people out of position 3 into position 1. They did it to me, and they will do it to others. It took a few incidents, because I desperately wanted to 'be kind', but eventually, continuing to 'be kind was too starkly a choice to be downright nasty to other people.

I think Stonewall are taking this hard line, because the battleground has been set for them. Rugby is where ideology clashed with reality most glaringly, and whatever the final decision is, that is going to be the precedent for every other sport. They wouldn't have picked rugby, had they a choice, but they can't control everyone else's priorities.

Rugby officials had to get the issue sorted out more urgently than anyone else, because it's bloody rugby. World Rugby took a great deal of care with that investigation, and although it's rugby-focused, it's also relevant to mixed-sex competition in non-contact sports. Dr Hilton's work will be read by other governing bodies. The only hope Stonewall have of getting others to ignore her work is to get World Rugby to disregard it themselves.

Their premises are, TWAW, and that it is impossible for recognising the "rights" of someone to be unfair for others. Rights in this case meaning right to identify as a woman.

I think this is right @Goosefoot.

You start from the premise TWAW, you arrive at the conclusion "therefore they should be allowed to play women's rugby and anything else is discriminatory."

Then you look at a photo of the player for Porth Women's team who "folds opponents like a deckchair."

At this point, formal logic allows you two options.

1. You think "That's crazy", treat it as a reductio ad absurdum of your starting premise and realise that TWANW.

2. You hang onto your premise, deny the evidence of science and your own eyes, and insist that women's sport be shat on from a great height.

Unfortunately, human nature and lack of critical reasoning skills being what it is, a lot of well-meaning people in the "be kind" camp instead choose to live with an untenable, illogical third option of "be kind, parrot stuff about inclusion, and do not under any circumstances allow yourself to look to hard at the consequences." Cognitive dissonance writ large.

Any sane person should be in camp (1), there's nothing we can do about camp (2), but the really worrying people are those in the untenable third place getting splinters up their arse, because they're the people who'll vote Labour even when Lisa Nandy says she's cool with male rapists being placed in female prisons, because they want to "be kind."

(2) is really an extreme position, the real political fight is between the people who instinctively think "reductio ad absurdum" and the people who go "la la la, not listening" and continue to act as unwitting supporters of position (2).

Money? Sunk cost fallacy? Misogyny on an institutional scale? What power does the Stonewall trans advisory panel hold over the rest of the organisation and how did they get the power?

It’s money. Large charities exist primarily for the benefit of the privileged, liberal educated people who land lucrative roles within them. Sometimes they manage to offer some benefit to the communities they purport to serve. Often, though, they’ll fuck these communities over (quite literally in the case of Oxfam’s sex for aid practices), just like Stonewall has done by condemning homosexuality in order to carry on bringing in the $$. These organisations have time and again shown themselves to be unabashedly and self-servingly racist, misogynistic and homophobic.

Their premises are, TWAW, and that it is impossible for recognising the "rights" of someone to be unfair for others. Rights in this case meaning right to identify as a woman.

Somehow they have accepted these ideas to the degree that no matter what ind of research or analysis comes out about actual empirical facts around male and female bodies, they assume it's flawed or incomplete or something.

“We are asking rugby clubs at all levels of the game to stand with us against a ruling that is exclusionary and that will impact some of the most vulnerable people in the community”.

Cheating men are the most vulnerable in the community? The civil rights movement must have truly exhausted itself and there is nothing more that society needs to fight for.

it's like Stonewall are trying to peak as many people as possible at once.

It's a hell of a position to take that no right minded person would support. But why are they taking it?

Money? Sunk cost fallacy? Misogyny on an institutional scale? What power does the Stonewall trans advisory panel hold over the rest of the organisation and how did they get the power?

I really don't know, but genuinely baffled

It's like Stonewall are trying to peak as many people as possible at once. They have got ex-rugby players, who have never tweeted about trans issues ever before, standing up for women's safety.

It's just delusional. I just despair that everything female is now reduced to "feelings."

There aren't even any attempts to deconstruct the GC argument. If you want to debate, you have got to engage with the reasoning of your opposite number.

They don't want to debate. They want us to shut up.

What the hell is this all about? Stonewall must know how crazy this is; they must be aware of how it looks to people.

If you told me this was some kind of mad experiment to show how insane ideas can be pushed through society, a bit like KLF and their "get to number one with a bonkers song" experiment, I'd be like "yeah, that makes sense."

Stonewall seems hellbent on destroying their own brand and influence. I don't understand it. It's like a constant stream of Ratners moments.

I'm just going to leave this here. If only we could use clear language when talking about this specific issue, like JL uses in this clip. I liked the whole thing, but she is very direct from about 5.10 to 6.00

Watching with interest to see how this will pan out - how much pressure will be put on World Rugby, versus whether this outbreak of sanity will spread to other women's sports?

Praying that it's part of a push-back in favour of common-sense and science.

My position has always been "Trans? Happy to back you all the way against genuine prejudice in the majority of situations where biological sex does not matter (I treat your belief that you ought to be a woman as I would treat a religious person's belief in an immortal soul - I don't share it, but you holding it shouldn't stop you getting most jobs or access to your own, as opposed to shared, housing). But in the minority of situations where biology does matter: women - the old fashioned, uterus-having kind - must be protected."

Sport is definitely in the category of situations where biology not merely matters, it's pretty much everything.

Imagine this being the hill you choose to die on. Of course sport isn't inclusive. Who would watch it? No one wants to see me playing sodding tennis in the name of "inclusivity", do they?

There aren't even any attempts to deconstruct the GC argument. If you want to debate, you have got to engage with the reasoning of your opposite number.

I was just thinking about what JKR would be thinking of this, wondering if she might tweet about sports soon - I just looked on her page and she has retweeted something about the Stonewall tweet

Let Stonewall carry on - let the world see what a ridiculous misogynist organisation it is.

Wasn't it gymnastics England that implemented the mixed sex changing.

Swim England backed down thanfulky after the man Friday campaign.

That post was great. It's amplified how ridiculous it is. Think Stonewall have really overreached on this one. Last time I looked it had been retweeted 1.2K times. It's a great way to show them up for what they are. A big misjudgement on their part. 99.9% of people think it's insane.

They, and their woke supporters, have to die on this hill. If they admit MTF trans people have male bodies the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

Audiences, they'll be important. I saw a clip and a lot of the audience were booing. We hate unfairness and you can't arrest the whole bunch unless they're going to police sporting venues.

I assume this is the US and we're not at that state in the UK.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of Sport England reviews. They are acknowledging the issues though and how contentious this is, so it will be interesting. I would imagine loads of backlash when the report is published if it isn't clearly women focused

Yep gendered intelligence review will be totally objective 🤦🏻‍♀️

twitter.com/genderintell/status/1296376000402599937?s=21

Boxing does not include everyone, there are 'exclusionary' weight divisions every few kilos.

The average man weighs more than a few kilos more than the average woman.

Covid hasn't made much of a difference imo.

The whole point of half this stuff is that it's done by stealth. Women have been and are continuing to be blocked banned arrested etc in the desperate bid to keep everything quiet.

Everything is done in secret. Thats the point.

Roswell sorry I meant they weren't seeing these things at the moment because of Covid, not in general and not that it isn't happening. It will be much more to the forefront when life has settled down......perhaps