“The only way I can describe this is that it’s like grief. It’s like something has been ripped away.”

FB comments still up, and uniform in their support of women's sport!

Oh look - they've removed the comments - 99.9% of which were critical of Fitzgerald's moaning about not being allowed to take a woman's place in women's rugby.

Comments seem to have gone now.

That's going to endear them to their readership even further. I'm sure they like being censored to promote a nonsense agenda every bit as much as the Times commenters do,

@picklemewalnuts Got it 👍 sorry, I honestly didn't understand the comment. Haven't been sleeping very well.....

With your name it sounded like you might have wanted to "pickle your (male) nuts" 😅

NOBODY says TW are "not woman enough". There isn't a scale of womanhood

Exactly. They're not women in any way, shape or form.

Comments seem to have gone now.

@grey12 , did you see Arabella's comment? "I mean, nobody can kick this person out of a sector that they cannot physically belong to. It's like trying to opt out of gravity."

I was agreeing with Arabella that TWs can't be kicked out of the category
Woman, as they are not in it and never were.

Equally, as a woman I can't be kicked out of the category by anyone. If they were actually women, they couldn't be kicked out of the category.

Does that clarify? I'm not a transwoman, no matter how bad I look in some of the harshly lit nightclub mirrors!

Where are the comments?

Ended her career? She's fifty fucking four!!

Don't understand your comment.

Are you a transwoman?

Where are the comments? Am I being stupid or have they been removed?

there are probably a good number of 54 year olds who could mix it with the youngsters at a modest level. something that i should think would hold here in all cases without exception is that the '25 years earlier' version of these players would wipe the floor with 'modest' competition. that's the real reason for the trans ban, it's to stop rugby getting its own Hannah Mouncey, a very large prime aged she-male who's a very serious danger to female players.

Equally, @ArabellaScott , no one can kick them out of the sector they belong to.

You can call me all sorts, but nothing you do or say can prevent me being a woman. I cannot be excluded from my sex category.

This with bells on

Love the sunlight this story sheds on it all

I mean, nobody can kick this person out of a sector that they cannot physically belong to. It's like trying to opt out of gravity.

I think their main thing is to try to systematically go through each of the sectors of society where we want to exist and kick us out.

This is quite telling. It's an admission that this person is not part of that sector. 'Wanting', or desire, or aspiration, has absolutely nothing to do with scientific classification.

’How many 54 year old women can still play full contact team sports with opponents, in some cases, who are 30 years younger than them?’

That ^

Let me get my...

I've said this on other occasions but if, for some reason, somebody asked me how to lower the T reading in a blood test, I'd advise:

• fasting or very low calorie intake for a couple of days
• short abstention from physical training.

If someone asked about a slightly low RBC count, I might wonder if they had over-hydrated before the test. I'm underwhelmed by individual physiological markers.

Helpful table here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2263/table/ch1.T1/

I think a number of us would share Curtiss' outrage for secrecy (Hello Denton and Press for Change) although for different reasons.

“I find it extremely unlikely that the RFU wasn’t already having these deliberations. If they were having them, why did they choose not to engage? They seem to have done this entire thing secret-squirrel.”
…
She is particularly critical of the “thorough review of scientific evidence” that the RFU carried out as part of its “precautionary approach” to prioritise safety, and questions why it is not rugby-specific. She tried in vain to engage with the RFU ahead of the vote, urging the governing body to oversee clinical studies on trans female players over the upcoming season. But her proposal was met by a wall of silence which, she insists, is telling of a wider issue at play.
“I personally don’t think that the people who are running around and trying to influence various sports bodies have women’s sport at heart,” insists Curtiss. “I don’t think any of them are particularly interested in women’s sport, ultimately. I think their main thing is to try to systematically go through each of the sectors of society where we want to exist and kick us out.”

I couldn't agree more that, left to their own devices (Hello, British Cycling), there are several sectors of society and sports bodies that find the existence of women inconvenient and want to "kick us out".

For those who can't read The Telegraph, the trick is to open the article and allow it to load up to the point where the article is visible, but stop it (press the cross on the address bar) before it has time to hide most of the article under the offer to subscribe. It's a delicate art, and I ususally temporarily turn off my WiFi once I've got the article too, to make sure it doesn't reload the hidden version...

That was a terrible interview. Why on Earth did the interviewer not ask the obvious question which is;

”You’ve spoken very passionately about why you believe that the science is wrong, and that you, as a male, do not have an unfair advantage, so why do you not play in a male team?”

Any way of sharing? I can't read it.

I love this article because it hoists this transwoman by her own petard. It's absolutely clear from the photos and ages what the problem is but the Genderists can't call it transphobic.

It does (hoist her etc), but I don't know if that was the intention. The article seems very sympathetic. It could quite easily have been published in the Guardian.

Anyway, as everyone has pointed out, the comments aren't having any truck with it, so that's all good.

Yes, as always, the accusations are admissions