World Rugby Guidelines out

It's all on a par with being 'erased' by keeping a few women's spaces single sex.

And wanting trans people to not exist (or thinking they don't exist), because you wish to retain female spaces/rights too.

Tbf everyone I’ve spoken to about it in person is of the opinion that allowing “trans women” to compete in rugby shouldn’t even need saying it’s unfair; it should be blindingly obvious (and is)

Yeah, same. Also, my cousins partner is transsexual ('old school' post op, though that matters not much really) and is 100% firmly against any males being in womens sports. She says its blatantly obvious and its bonkers that its ever been allowed. Also reckons among other transsexual people she knows, they think the same.

Mind shes also very against near everything 'transactivists' stand for/want. So would be classed as 'truscum,' to them, like many transsexual people who aren't just about stereotypes but dysphoria.

It's all on a par with being 'erased' by keeping a few women's spaces single sex.

The caption for the picture in the BBC article reads "Transgender women are now unable to play international rugby union". This is factually incorrect, isn't it? It's only women's rugby they can't play. Phrased as it is, it sounds discriminatory, implying that it's transness which is being excluded (which would be transphobic), rather than maleness (which is entirely correct for a female sport).

Yup as usual. Everywhere I have seen this talked about (bar feminist groups) its been framed as transwomen barred from rugby fullstop, rather than just banned from competing against female people, as males. Trans is almost irrelevant, as usual, its about sex, not 'transness'

I'm delighted with the world rugby decision, and hopefully it will filter down because the science is the science.

And of course the rank misogynists who are in complete science denial meltdown deserve nothing but contempt.

But even the 'good guys' are getting to me.

What I've been really struck by is the amount of handwringing and defensive justification and banging on about philosophical ideas, in order to just tell men no.

The self evident science had to be re-investigated, ffs. Endless dotting of I's and crossing of T's on something that everybody knows. Because they have eyes.

And furthermore, once again, I'm compelled to say to men that women are human beings, you know. Who have historically been excluded from sport because of rank sexism. We have had to fight for every tiny thing. And now this.

Just because a few male individuals have gender dysphoria or cross dress, the whole world and his wife are trying to squeeze women out of the picture, once more. The pushback means they can't, but oh my God the handwringing.

I'm just hearing we're awfully sorry, we wish it could be otherwise because some men are disappointed, we want to be inclusive, but frankly, our feet have been held to the fire now, and reluctantly we must say it's not really possible, unless of course, you've been subjected to medication as a child, or the science changes - and make no mistake, we'll be checking on that regularly, blah blah, blah.

Just because some very brave, strong, tenacious women have said NO.

And they will still have to sleep with one eye open.

And it’s so manipulative-it should say transgender men because it sounds like the meanies have excluded trans sexuals

Tbf everyone I’ve spoken to about it in person is of the opinion that allowing “trans women” to compete in rugby shouldn’t even need saying it’s unfair; it should be blindingly obvious (and is)

It’s all very well focusing on science and looking at hormone levels and strength, but to be honest there should never have even been an argument about this. Males should not be allowed in women’s sports. The focus of the argument is now going to shift to letting puberty blocked males compete and then there will have to be studies about whether these particular males have an advantage or not. We shouldn’t even have to be on the defensive about this - it should simply be an axiom that only females can compete in women’s sports. To have studies investigating whether some males are safe to compete in women’s sports is as absurd as a study into whether adults can compete against children. Safety is obviously important but it’s also rather besides the point. I just wish that rather spending a lot to time and money investigating the equivalent of whether bears shit in the woods the sporting authorities would just say “no”.

The caption for the picture in the BBC article reads "Transgender women are now unable to play international rugby union". This is factually incorrect, isn't it? It's only women's rugby they can't play. Phrased as it is, it sounds discriminatory, implying that it's transness which is being excluded (which would be transphobic), rather than maleness (which is entirely correct for a female sport).

Ah, here's the story. Of course, that one wasn't on the homepage.

The initial story, which they shared on their Facebook page last night, was just about the decision from World Rugby and had no response from Stonewall and whoever. All comments but one on the Facebook story were pleased with WR.

I wonder if that's a deliberate tactic... Put up the biased propaganda piece first, which gets an initial rush of hits. Subsequently edit to add the odd fact and make a nod to reality, but by that time a lot of the people who are interested in the story will have already read it and will have no reason to click again. And for those complaining about bias - what do you mean? Nothing to see here.

Massive change. Well done to those who complained, but of course most BBC readers will have read the earlier version.

Posie's absolutely right about community rugby, though.

Also - has anyone noticed the strange wording in World Rugby's announcement. Rather than saying "we recommend that transwomen don't play women's rugby", they've said "We don't recommend that transwomen do play women's rugby." Very different meaning. The science that went into the report would seem (to my mind) to support the former, the latter allows way too much wriggle room.

Has anyone noticed the BBC headline and report has now changed (and now includes quotes from Fairplay for Women)? Bit of backtracking there maybe!

Sorry, the link didn't explain, Posie Parker has a strong opinion that's hard to disagree with

mobile.twitter.com/MVSRUFC/status/1314944199377260544/photo/1

One response. They seem to think world rugby want to exclude trans players.

The BBC coverage is appalling.

Just a quote from someone from Bonerwall whingeing "they didn't look at the science" which is an outright lie, because the whole thing was an exercise in looking at the science - all of it, not just cherry picking one study with a small sample size in an unrelated sport.

And the BBC instead of challenging this lie, let it go.

And - did you notice the lovely bit of misogynistic ageism, where they mentioned Sharron Davies' age for no reason whatsoever?

I saw that BBC headline - 'World Rugby Criticised on Transgender Decision' - and thought - Great, the BBC are actually telling it how it is and reporting the prevailing common sense view that male bodied people shouldn't be allowed in women's rugby at any level.

But no. OF COURSE the BBC are reporting from the niche stonewall perspective. In spite of the twitter ratio and the glaring gaps in actual logic.

How the fuck they still kid themselves they're unbiased becomes more difficult to fathom every day.

Transmen are permitted to participate in men’s contact rugby.

^Surely this would be massively dangerous for transmen? Bad enough having one male competing with females, but a team of males against one?! Jesus. Mind, I suppose transmen were actively fighting for the right to be competing with men?

*Kit19

Bbc headline

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54491179

Yes of course stonewalls disappointment is the key thing here as opposed to world rugby making sure women are safe*

And the BBC is supposed to be a public service.

Utterly biased reporting - and doesn’t explain it to the uninitiated.

I can’t see insurance firms being influenced by Twitter or “woke”. Money trumps everything

twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1314878304122535937

A long thread but pretty much concludes that it will be the insurance that will be the issue. I don't see why insurers would want to cover the costs when a woman inevitably gets injured. How is "we didn't care about women's safety because we were afraid of Twitter" going to sound in court?

Yes of course stonewalls disappointment is the key thing here as opposed to world rugby making sure women are safe

The Telegraph's coverage was the same, to my disappointment.

(I think the Torygraph has gone for trans ideology in a big way because it's a bit Maria Miller on the issue - an easy way to pretend Tories aren't the Nasty Party by being woker than woke on something they don't think matters in the grand scheme of things. Which is disappointing, because they have made a big push to cover women's sport properly, and they back women in business issues and the "Pregnant then Screwed" campaign.)