Interesting article by ex rugby international on trans women in rugby

[BiologyIsReal]

www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2019/09/02/rugby-rightly-inclusive-sport-research-disproves-safety-risk/

Sorry for length of post but I thought it was interesting coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and I know many posters may not be able to access it.

A paraphrase of the article.

Brian Moore, former England international and sports writer for the Daily Telegraph (which, incidentally is the most pro-women's sports of all the nationals and covers more female sport than any other national) has put, as he sees it, the arguments for and against trans women's participation in female rugby. He is a big supporter of women's rugby and two of his four daughters have played rugby.

He says comprehensive scientific research on the topic is vital.

Main points:
*The issue is divisive and rugby authorities have to recognise how disruptive the issue is and must be taken seriously;
*Rugby claims to be inclusive but this will be undermined if it does not get is policy right on transgender players;
*Despite there being few transgender rugby players the Kelly Morgan story attracted "hysterical comments like:This is the death of rugby";
*Men do not suddenly decide they want to become transgender. It is not a trivial decision, but one taken over time;
*Many comments show ignorance of the fact that there are wide disparities in size, weight and power, not least because of the physical requirement of different positions: this does not automatically make rugby unsafe for smaller, lighter or less powerful players;
*Comments about disparities in size, strength etc. should not be ignored because, left unchallenged, they become accepted wisdom and women's rugby has fought hard to overcome the impression it is not suitable for females;
*Informed decisions are being hampered by lack of scientific evidence: there is little or no rugby-specific evidence;
*Not surprising rugby has followed athletics in requiring trans women to take oestrogen to lower testosterone: problem is that this is not universally accepted and some academics claim the range needs to be 5 times lower to remove inherent advantages;
*They also rightly point out that trans women retain the advantages of denser bone structure, greater muscle memory and overall size with bone density being particularly important as it affects ability to absorb impacts in tackles, rucks and scrums;
*Comments on physical safety: rugby has duty to ensure players are as safe as reasonably practical in contact sport:
*"Until rugby has better information on this safety issue it would be wise to restrict transgender women to playing non-contact rugby.";
*This would be allowed by section 195 of the Equalities Act 2010;
*Women's rugby accounts for a quarter of global playing population and has grown in England by 28% since 2017: these achievements could be jeopardised by just one incident of serious injury or one successful legal action caused by participation of a transgender woman;
*Legally, morally and for the good of women's rugby, World Rugby needs to act now;

The final paragraph in full.

"As soon as comprehensive research shows it is possible to put transgender female rugby players in a position where they pose no greater risk of harm than natal females, they should be able to play full contact and be welcomed into an inclusive sport has had a good record of accommodating lesbian and gay people. Those who still disagree should at least be honest and admit their real agenda is not safety."

I can't work out from that final paragraph whether he is inherently against it and is looking for more evidence to ban it or whether he believes rugby should be inclusive of trans women and is taking a sideswipe at those of us who are against it

One glaring error on his part is that he seems to think these trans women all take ages over transition and have undergone the full medical procedures (as opposed to being mediocre blokes who want to succeed in women's rugby rather than fail in men's).

Place mark to read later

Totally agree about the Telegraph's excellent coverage of women's sport.

I think Brian is pretty muddled. He can see the dangers, can see the inherent unfairness, but is swept away by a belief that the overarching principle of "inclusion." He really hasn't got his head around the differences between biological women and biological men - or really thought seriously about why he thinks "transwomen are women (if only we can weaken them enough)" (which seems to be the undstated, underlying premise of his article).

No mention either of the latest research out of the Karolinska institute showing that in a lot of biological males T inhibitors and oestrogen do not reduce strength by a significant amount.

Brian - women are not just "artificially weakened men" and "woman" is not a feeling in a man's head. I agree with your conclusion that transwomen can play tag rugby (I'd say mixed tag rugby).

But no-one with a Y chromosome should be in women's sports, contact or non-contact.

(Interesting that the Telegraph hasn't dared to open comments).

ive been waiting to see Brian's take on it

"As soon as comprehensive research shows it is possible to put transgender female rugby players in a position where they pose no greater risk of harm than natal females" as natal born males have a very long list of advantages from going through puberty then i dont believe that that research will ever exist and I think he knows that too

Thanks Biology. I am so pleased you posted such a full summary of Brian Moore's article. I always admired him a lot and noted last week that he said he was going to write a proper detailed reply, not a tweet but a lot of stuff in The Telegraph is on premium access so not everyone can read it.

I think that his suggestions sound quite fair. I think he is saying that some account needs to be taken of physical size over and above testosterone levels and residual advantages to player transitioning after puberty. I am thinking of the photos of Hannah Mouncey - maybe less important in non contact sports but definitely important in rugby.

and he's using that as his get out card

I fully expect the wrath of TRA to descend on him none the less...

His twitter message accompanying it

twitter.com/brianmoore666/status/1168431842585976832?s=21

Always a pleasure to read a man measuredly telling women their concerns are hysterical.

Still not seeing how letting male bodies into a women's sport is good for women and significant to the last paragraph, what the hell it's got to do with rugby including lesbians and gays.

I wish people would stop saying this is a complex subject. It isn't. Don't let men compete in women's sport. That's the end of it.

As soon as comprehensive research shows it is possible to put transgender female rugby players in a position where they pose no greater risk of harm than natal females, they should be able to play full contact and be welcomed into an inclusive sport has had a good record of accommodating lesbian and gay people. Those who still disagree should at least be honest and admit their real agenda is not safety."

As comprehensive research will never show this because it isn't true best just tell XY trans identifying people 'no women's rugby for you ever' now instead of stringing them along. What cowardice.

”As soon as comprehensive research shows it is possible to put transgender female rugby players in a position where they pose no greater risk of harm than natal females, they should be able to play full contact”

Had he used the more appropriate “If ever...” instead of “As soon as...” I would have appreciated his sentiment more.

Even better had he added “and if it proves true that they can never meet that criterion, then any and all debate should stop.”

Because when it is shown that no amount of hormones will turn a man into a woman, the discussion should be permanently closed.

"As soon as comprehensive research shows it is possible to put transgender female rugby players in a position where they pose no greater risk of harm than natal females, they should be able to play full contact and be welcomed into an inclusive sport has had a good record of accommodating lesbian and gay people. Those who still disagree should at least be honest and admit their real agenda is not safety."

Yes, it is not only safety but fairness, about erasing women from the sport. Asshole.

And the way it is phrased, "as soon as" - you fucking well know that will never be shown. Asshole again.

I wish people would stop saying this is a complex subject. It isn't. Don't let men compete in women's sport. That's the end of it.

I agree.
A lot of men seem to confuse themselves by starting from the assumption that a man who likes to wear dresses or whatever and declares himself a woman couldn't possibly be a man. They are non-men i.e. women.
Women's sport is for women. Why on earth should it be inclusive of men, whether or not they "pose no greater risk of harm than natal females"?

Brian does not have a clue what an inclusive sport looks like. Welcoming gay/lesbian people into your sport is not the same as welcoming trans people into the teams of the opposite sex.
True inclusion would be the inclusion of TW into existing men’s rugby teams.

He is sitting on the fence isn't he? The trouble with that is you get splinters in your arse.

I'm really surprised considering he had two rugby playing daughters.

“As soon as comprehensive research shows it is possible to put transgender female rugby players in a position where they pose no greater risk of harm than natal females, they should be able to play full contact and be welcomed into an inclusive sport that has a good record of accommodating lesbian and gay people.”

He’s saying that transgender players should not be allowed into full contact women’s rugby until it has been proved that they pose no greater risk than biological women.

Man tells women what's good for them

That is not quite what he is saying, otherwise he would have used the words you used. His choice of words is very telling - he fully expects this to be the case and it is just a matter of time.

He also completely ignores the fairness aspect. It may very well be that one decides there is no significant difference in harm - but that does not mean these people have no advantage from being male.

And that fact alone is very telling about this man.

It is only complicated because the fence his is sitting on is wobbly.

He is trying to say on the one hand, A, and on the other hand, B. But they don't balance.

Do one Brian

No men in womens rugby
How come he never spoke about the women who think they are men playing in men’s rugby

And ffs it’s nowt to do with gay or lesbian people

Brian hasn’t got a clue what he is talking abou5

The argument is always ‘xx sport is inclusive which is why.....’. But trans women are already included. Maxine Blythin transgender Kent women’s team player also played in the men’s team, sometimes both on one weekend. This rugby player could presumably play in the men’s team particularly as we know that taking oestrogen doesn’t reduce muscle strength very much and as the article says there are different requirements for different player positions. This so-called inclusive policy gives trans women (not trans men) more opportunities than they had before when they were already included. The only people excluded are biological women, pushed out of their own game.

and be welcomed into an inclusive sport

I’m assuming woman will need to do the welcoming to a sport they’re then excluded from.

Yep. Uh ha. Fuck you very much man deciding which other men can be women, just as soon as.

Even if transwomen don't injure women on the pitch, they'll still be faster (cf all the research cited on runners), so will be picked anyway, pushing women out of women's teams. Not very inclusive.

On the transman side, even if transmen on a rugby field were not to be injured by the men, the transmen would not have picked up enough speed and other forms of performance from taking testosterone (hip angle, etc. Again, see reaearch) to be as valuable teammembers as men. No inclusiveness here, either.

It just doesn't work.

I think focusing on health/safety concerns is far too narrow.

The unfairness needs to be given equal if but higher billing.

I'm an average fit man, I'm not going to be able to hit harder than the strongest woman in the world but I will most likely be able to hit harder than a woman of comparable fitness and even those who have done a good deal more training than me.
If I'm allowed to compete against them it devalues their training and right to complete on a level playing field.
He should be focusing on that and how fucking unfair that is

Fuck you very much man deciding which other men can be women, just as soon as.

^^ this

I wish people would stop saying this is a complex subject. It isn't. Don't let men compete in women's sport. That's the end of it.

This in spades. Brian seems to have missed the basic premise that women’s sport is for women. Not hard to define or requiring further research.