Rugby reject koolaid, listen to science

[niceberg]

Thank goodness.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

'As for ‘impartial”, do you think the other people in the room to debate science, medicine, law and rights, but who represented the other side, the inclusion side, were partial? By your logic, there’d have been nobody there.' Ross Tucker, 11.37 am 21/07/2020 (I should have referenced it).

@highame

Hmm 800m Olympic final 2016...

No that didn't look good but Caster wasn't trans

Caster Semenya isn’t trans

I think Caster is male, XY, with a medical condition that gives him undescended testicles, an underdeveloped penis and slightly feminine features. That sucks for him, but he still has the testosterone and strength of a normal man (or above average male strength even).

Meanwhile on the reddit trans forum, the thread on rugby is 100% that this decision is wrong and transphobic. Of course it is, because all the feminist and trans oriented forums there will ban you if you dare suggest transwomen are not exactly the same as ciswomen. Reddit just banned any feminist forum which didn't tow this official party line, even the most inoffensive ones such as truelesbians.

The arguments seem to be that it is unscientific to claim transwomen are stronger on average than ciswomen because some transwomen are weaker than some ciswomen. This is a logical fallacy of course.
They also claim it is manifestly unfair to just blanket ban all transwomen from women's rugby without testing them to make sure how strong they actually are. Of course in practice such a test would be impractical. Especially as many transwomen would try and cheat it and would rules-lawyer it to death (e.g. "I'm weaker than that exceptional strong ciswoman, so I should be allowed to play!").

Surely the potential litigation from injured players is the driving force behind this action? I can't imagine many insurance companies are willing to underwrite the risk of having extreme injury compensation go up. All it takes is one or two broken spines and the whole sport could go down - no insurance, no play.

I suppose transwomen could offer to purchase extra insurance personally, but that would require admitting they pose a higher risk.

Its just bollocks. There is literally no argument which says Male bodied ppl should play rugby with female bodied ppl beyond be kiiiiinndddd and give men what they want

How they hate it when we say no & back it up with evidence of harm

Press reporting of this (leaked) draft is concentrating on "the science" if they are sane - like Sean Ingle, who has been very well-informed on this for some time - and on whinging elsewhere, obviously. But I think it's really important to highlight that the World Rugby review, of which this is part, really does seem to have taken ALL aspects of this on board. "Not just science".

Here is Ross Tucker (quoted above too) talking about the remit of the enquiry:

twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1285274082037190658

"The intentions are, in order, safety, fairness, inclusion."

(My emphasis).

World Rugby is going out on a complete limb by even CONSIDERING the first two, let alone putting them above Stonewalling, let alone making that public.

"The science" really, really matters because it proves the lack of safety and the lack of fairness, and - at present - it is where the issues in sports are going to be won (or god forbid lost). But (see the link earlier in thread to the full range of presentations) World Rugby considered safety and fairness separately from the science too.

I'm also not going to blame Sean Ingle for the headline of the Guardian article either - journalists tend not to write headlines, subeditors do, and I would rather have a poor headline and an excellent article than vice versa.

No one is saying TW can’t play rugby they completely can - in Male teams or in TW teams not on female teams

Surely the potential litigation from injured players is the driving force behind this action?

I really don't think it is. I really think World Rugby a) genuinely cares about the safety of players b) genuinely cares about fairness c) genuinely can spot the Emperor's lack of undercrackers.

It's notable that people like Nic Williams and Emma Hilton have not had a bad word to say about the process so far.

Meanwhile on the reddit trans forum, the thread on rugby is 100% that this decision is wrong and transphobic. Of course it is, because all the feminist and trans oriented forums there will ban you if you dare suggest transwomen are not exactly the same as ciswomen.

I had a wee peek on there and saw this objection to the word 'biological' (if the pic attaches). Someone confusing gender and sex before declaring "Trans women are in fact biological women"

And bringing up male and female skeletons being different is classic transphobic trolling. Double

Their mindset is just so baffling, there's zero point in trying to engage. Maybe that's their aim-an ''if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit'' kind of approach 🤷‍♀️

The topic was on r/news too though, and the main response there was "duh, of course TW are stronger than women", albeit there were fewer commenters.

Aw man. I absolutely adore Squidge. His rugby analysis is spot on and very funny.

But he's way off the mark on this one.

Imagine talking that much shite with such confidence!! Transwomen are in fact biological women 😂

Well, the one who confidently asserts "I'm a transwoman and

Sorry, posted too soon.

"I'm a transwoman and I would say I am biologically a transwoman" might have a point

I still don't understand the comment upthread saying that transwomen who have been on puberty blockers and not had a 'male puberty' wouldn't want to play rugby.

The explanation about personality type doesn't clarify it for me at all.

I just can't imagine any trans woman I know or in the public eye wanting to play rugby. Jazz Jennings is a good example, I don't believe she has been through male puberty. Can we envisage her playing rugby?

Anyway I'm a woman of average fitness and if I was to play rugby then I'd fancy my chances against Jazz Jennings much more than say Fallon Fox.

Therefore if Jazz Jennings did announce she wanted to play women's rugby I think she has a reasonable case to make. Anyone who has been through male puberty has not. As the excellent Guardian article states.

And no I don't think the chance to play women's rugby will push young men to take puberty blockers, I really think that's a stretch.

I had a wee peek on there and saw this objection to the word 'biological' (if the pic attaches). Someone confusing gender and sex before declaring "Trans women are in fact biological women".

This level of delusion is the result of not being told 'you are a dumb ass'

No young person should be taking puberty blockers ever.

Child abuse

Oh Sapphos No. Not this again. It has already happened. Enough with the stereotypes and wide eyed niceness (on every thread). We see you.

Acceptance without exception means it’s one in, all in. Case by case doesn’t work in this or any other part of the debate.

Seriously please give over with the 'we see you' Chaka. It's impossible to have a conversation on here without someone claiming to speak for the entire hive mind of FWR and piping up with 'we see you'. Bloody tiresome.

I just can't imagine any trans woman I know or in the public eye wanting to play rugby.

Well, some 'transwomen' do play rugby, like Kelly Morgan from Porth, otherwise World Rugby would have had no need to produce their report.

Women play rugby, which is why there are women's rugby teams. Why do you think that transwomen, even those who transition as children and never go through puberty, are less likely than women to want to play rugby?

And no I don't think the chance to play women's rugby will push young men to take puberty blockers, I really think that's a stretch.

Nobody has said this. And if they're already 'young men' it's too late to avoid puberty.

there is no way any male who has had puberty blocked and is on oestrogen is going to be in any fit state to play rugby. They are being managed as patients in a constant state of iatrogenic ill health, mentally and physically. If any of them are remotely interested in playing a hat physical sport like rugby I’ll be shocked, but I wouldn’t object to anyone playing rugby because they don’t have the advantages of male puberty. Pre-pubertal boys are stronger than prepubertal girls generally, but I don’t think it would be noticeable. HOWEVER, I categorically object to this being used and seen as a positive goal resulting from the use of puberty blockers in children. “Being able to play contact sport with the opposite sex” in no way justifies this medical pathway and all of its negative effects.

I thought this was interesting from @NotBadConsidering earlier in the thread. Once again we seem to be in agreement, although I don't think playing women's rugby will ever be touted as a positive goal by TRAs.

@ShinyFootball

1. How has it come to women having to prove that women and girls are on average shorter and less good at the sort of sports that people play (made by men for men since whenever) rather than the other way round?

1. The idea put about by some is that women are held back by themselves and if they tried harder they would be able to compete with men. This has massive repurcussions. In terms of violence by men on women. Why didn't you fight him off?

1. There isn't much research in this area because it's really fucking obvious that men and women are different physically. Strength, size etc. The research has all been into behaviour and brains to show that female = interior.

Why the fuck were men allowed to do all this stuff across the board that was for women and it's up to women to PROVE that they should get the fuck out.

My worry is a compromise where we get contact sports, weight lifting, prisons. And the rest is gone.

The insanity and injustice of it all never ceases to shock and appal me, even though I know well by now that this is the reality of the world we live in.

As others have said, mixed feelings on this - delighted of course that the WRU has come to this conclusion - but the shame and disgrace that it should ever have been necessary to go to these lengths simply to state such obvious facts.

What a fucking misogynistic cesspit the world must be for any and all of this to have happened.

But I am so, so glad that women and girl rugby players are going to be properly protected now!

I don't think playing women's rugby will ever be touted as a positive goal by TRAs.

I'll say it once more. World Rugby have compiled a report about this because transwomen are playing/want to play in women's rugby.

Read this discussion:
twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1285516174126718976?s=20

(screenshots in Winesalot's post earlier)

SapphosRock
Why do you keep saying that something which is already happening ;will never happen'?

To anyone’s knowledge no one who is now an adult transwoman who has been through medical affirmative treatment of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones with or without surgery has played or tried to play women’s rugby, probably because they’re too busy dealing with their reduced bone density, lack of fertility, lack of sexual functioning and any other of the myriad of effects on their cardiovascular systems that result from this treatment pathway.

Just add competitive sport to the list of many things these children are being denied.