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

It would be a shame to split by weight, but not nearly so validating, eh?

Ross Tucker, just before 8am. Very clear and all science based argument, vg!

He has consistently been great on this issue.

This was the best moment:

twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1165999893745418252?s=20

RoyalCorgi

I was thinking the same and my post on page 3 is along those lines, about how ridiculous it all is. However I’ve been pondering this over the last few days. I think they’ve done the sporting world a huge, huge favour even though they shouldn’t be required to, and I think this has been evident with the Twitter “debate” on this. Every tantrum now has a calm come back available:

“There’s no evidence!” -> ”Yes there is, look here.”

“But it doesn’t show [whichever trait]!” -> “Yes it does, look here.”

“But you’re not scientists!” -> List of credentials.

“But you’re transphobic!” -> trans woman on panel.

And so on, and so on. And other sports can use this research because it’s mostly applicable across the board. It will serve as a good line in the sand on this issue I think.

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Ross Tucker, just before 8am. Very clear and all science based argument, vg!

He has consistently been great on this issue.

This was the best moment:

twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1165999893745418252?s=20[/quote]
Perfect!

I agree Kit19. Masterclass.

Process was clear. Calm. Transparent. Inclusive. Evidence led. Impartial. Beautifully done.

I imagine the SRU will require all of their amateur players to re-register, because currently they do not ask the sex of their registered players (and all players MUST be registered), they do ask for gender & although I challenged that, they advised they had received advice from Stonewall & they didn't require to know the sex of their players.