Stonewall Lobby World Rugby

[SunsetBeetch]

Ffs I am so sick of this agenda-heavy lobby group and their war against women's rights!

(Note that they are controlling who can reply to them too.)

“We are asking rugby clubs at all levels of the game to stand with us against a ruling that is exclusionary and that will impact some of the most vulnerable people in the community”.

Join us and
@LgbtiqS
in calling
@WorldRugby
to #TackleTransphobia lgbtiqsportalliance.org.uk/uk-lgbtiq-sport

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1296801438211944455?s=20

Many women would probably be quite happy with a transwoman on the team. Nope!

Most of them see the advantage and think it is cheating
Most of them see the woman they have trained with for years, since early teens, sat on the bench
Most of them see the man, don't want to shower with him
Most of them see the man don't want to train with him as they too will be physically hurt.

As do most of the males in rugby!

The issue was realised when a number of women, who are also academics, coaches, referees and NGB members stood up and voiced their concerns, along with male counterparts in all levels of rugby.

Remember Stonewall didn't take on the RFU. The RFU has made decisions, canvassed players, taken a watching stance for a short while, gathered its evidence and made a statement based on measurable harm. The RFU acted , it didn't react to TRA/ Stonewall pressure!

Most of that was presented here!

www.world.rugby/news/563437?lang=en

@ThinEndoftheWedge

Many women would probably be quite happy with a transwoman on the team.

Yes - particularly the woman booted off the team to make way for males NOT.

My point is that some women who have not been booted off the team may not initially see the problem. Of course the ones who have lost their places will see the injustice.

However, if you maintain your place on the team, if you are of the 'be kind' school of thought, if there is only one transwoman that you know of playing in your local area, and if your side happens to benefit from the transwoman's inclusion, chances are you will take a TWAW stance.

The issues become clear further down the line. When more injuries happen. When more and more women lose their places on teams. When having a transwoman on the team is not a rare occurrence showing how delightfully progressive and inclusive your team is, but standard practice. When the game changes. When coaches proactively seek out transwomen to recruit to the side. That's when attitudes might begin to shift.

Indeed Edge!

The Kent women’s cricket captain was extremely vocal in her support for Kent TW player Maxine Blythe

www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/11/06/englands-tammy-beaumont-defends-transgender-kent-teammate-online/

I’m sure Kent women winning the league was a complete coincidence

Tammy has no problems throwing women under the bus because she & her team were winning

Just wondered if anyone here as contacted any of the rugby unions directly about this? I contacted the english rugby union last year and they simply said they follow World rugby’s policy. I haven’t contacted NZ rugby union.

So practically I feel that anyone concerned should counter the stonewall campaigning by contacting the union in their country. Please please do this!! Otherwise they can use the excuse that in their country this is what people wanted etc which is what the NZ rugby union looks to be doing.

Unions I think should be contacted:

NZ
England- RFU
South Africa
France
Samoa- they currently do not allow Fa’Afafine to play in women’s sports and don’t support it but after the Pacific games they said they’d consider doing it as everyone else is
Australia
Ireland
Argentina
Wales
Scotland
Japan
Italy
USA- while not a major player yet, lots of investment & money going on and most of the women’s 7’s have signed the letter to world rugby saying not to reverse this

Most of them see the advantage and think it is cheating
Most of them see the woman they have trained with for years, since early teens, sat on the bench
Most of them see the man, don't want to shower with him
Most of them see the man don't want to train with him as they too will be physically hurt.

Also most of them won’t want the opposition injured by a TW. Vanishingly few women will want a fellow woman to be injured.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/world-rugby-s-trans-women-ban-is-a-wise-idea

I love these articles. So much more mainstream awareness even than 6 months ago

I imagine it's pretty easy to adopt a 'transwomen are women' mindset when you're on the side that benefits.

I imagine that most people would call that cheating.

The RFU issued quite comprehensive guides, referencing some of our favourite organisatons. They allow anyone to play where they feel most comfortable, no contact or touch rugby is referred to as 'mixed gender', and they have registration forms and guidance for transgender and non binary players.

BUT they do also have Due to physical and psychological development changes brought about by puberty, it is appropriate and necessary for male and female eligibility categories to apply from the Under 12 Age Grade upwards and into the adult game.
The RFU wishes to be as inclusive as possible by implementing only necessary and proportionate eligibility requirements in order to enable players to train and play in the category of rugby that is consistent with their gender identity.

So yes, play in mixed genders... but we will retain male and female categories as we deem fit! It's quite an artful piece of language muddling and hasn't made a single change to what was already in place for a couple of decades. TRAs won't be able to fault them for the gender word. But they revert to male and female for the over 12 and adult game... which is when contact rugby starts and do so based on measurable stuff! Again hard for TRAs to challenge effectively.

Scotland is more woke

s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/sru-files/files/sr18_transgender_policy.pdf

The Welsh Union is having more of an issue as gay clubs are challenging their transgender policies but they are waiting on the results forn the firum, discussed above, and other changes within the world organisation.

The Welsh Union is having more of an issue as gay clubs are challenging their transgender policies

There are gay rugby clubs? That's surprised me.

So, are there any transgender clubs? That could be a thing? Soon?

There have been gay rugby clubs for years.

In my opinion that actually speaks volumes about the lack of inclusivity within the men’s game.

@Sexnotgender

There have been gay rugby clubs for years.

In my opinion that actually speaks volumes about the lack of inclusivity within the men’s game.

This was a surprise to me too when I started reading about them. Do they exclude heterosexual people then? Do they allow females to play with them? So, they are excluding some people yet are telling women that they need to STFU and exclude nobody.

Not sure how they calm the hypocritical dissonance that brings about....

Yes! We have a regular male poster hereabouts who plays for one of the first, a well known pub based club.

As people who know rugby keep on saying, it is fairly easy to get rugby to accept you, whoever you are. It has long been inclusive. Where it has not been quick enough it has been pulled and pushed into shape comparatively quickly (than say football).

The RFU stance will probably turn out to be world rugby rules, it is as inclusive and accepting as the nature of the game allows. There are ongoing discussions including all sides of the sex/gender divide and they will continue to inform debate and guidance changes.

It is pretty close to what women have been asking for and has come up with sensible rulings.

Any Trans lobbying against it will go against common sense in a sport that is very easy to picture the possible issues for everyone involved WITHOUT having to even begin contemplating changing rooms, pronouns, etc.

The male gay clubs in Wales, or the gay reps clubs. I'll have to check but I think it is the latter, the gay rep.for Cardiff Blues is one I remember being quite vocal!

Gay clubs play against any other team in the league they sign up to, depending on their area and ability, just like other clubs. Many are as much social support group as team. Maybe SimonJT will pop in and let us know more. But I am pretty certain they don't all agree with the IGR stance.

Maybe @simonJT could share some insight.

Thanks, I forget to even bold his name!

Just to clarify, I have no question as to why there might be gay clubs at all. I can understand that clubs may be culturally/socially based etc. My question is about whether they are exclusionary and if so, how they feel they can comment on this exclusion that is based on facts and science.

However, the exact same narrative is still being repeated today on twitter to discredit the findings. ie. the studies are not rugby specific and not transwomen specific and no injuries reported in all the years that TW have been allowed, so why the ban?

I guess that is why yesterday I also posted about whether or not statistics were gathered about injuries and how specific they were. Because, I have also seen many people who are saying they are contacting World Rugby to point out that there has been NO reports of injuries caused by transwomen playing against women. None at all. Zip. Nothing. So they say.

So is there nothing?

Or has the reporting system let down women and it is all anecdotal?

I wrote to the RFU last year as they had the same policy as world rugby which was that players were in fact able to play in the category that matched their gender identity. I wrote and outlined by concerns and they said simply that their policy is inline with world rugby.

At any age ^

It's the usual lying by omission. That and demanding studies in areas they know cannot exist because the circumstances don't exist... transwomen do not play rugby in women's teams* so how can their be studies based on them doing so. There are studies based on heavier, stronger, faster people hurting other players! They have been informing the changes to the rules for decades.

It's all just smoke and mirrors.

*not in numbers needed to make a study meaningful and the Welsh example upthread gave enough anecdotal information to make most people stop and think!

Ross Tucker has a really long thorough and helpful explanation as to how they came up with the stats they’re using, especially around the increased risk of serious injury claim, it is in a link I posted above. If I was on twitter I’d send it to Squidge Rugby as he believes the 30-40-% increased risk to be false since they didn’t study trans women rugby players ( but didn’t have the balls to say it directly to Ross when he was politely conversing with him ). It’s a very clear scientific process used to come up with solid data that shows how irresponsible ( and expensive ) it would be to continue to allow it.

Milly that is the broad picture. Mainly because under 12s is mixed sex, no contact.

As the quote above over 12 and adults they consider it appropriate and proportional to retain separation by sex. But you can apply to register for any team that most closely aligns with your gender identity.

So they adhere quite strictly to the EA2010, even whilst paying lip service to the demands of Stonewall etc.

How are there no injuries reported. That ‘Kelly’ in wales injured a coach did they not? ‘Hannah’ whilst playing in Australia rather than in the uk did they not break a woman’s leg?

I guess that is why yesterday I also posted about whether or not statistics were gathered about injuries and how specific they were. Because, I have also seen many people who are saying they are contacting World Rugby to point out that there has been NO reports of injuries caused by transwomen playing against women. None at all. Zip. Nothing. So they say.

So is there nothing?

Or has the reporting system let down women and it is all anecdotal?
Hi Wines I think we had a post above in this thread (I’m on my phone so can’t see it atm) about the match with an army side where #12 was the player that their team funnelled the ball to on account of their sex specific physical advantage and there were 5 catastrophic injuries to women - 2 of which were career ending. Can’t remember the source of that but I guess it’s out there somewhere. I’ll have a dig around. There were also the reports of refs resigning because they felt that certain players were unsafe to play with women.

no injuries reported in all the years that TW have been allowed, so why the ban?

Gah. I've been on a break since I'm reaching the point of WTAF and no longer being able to suffer fools gladly enough..... (Not you Wines whoever you were quoting)

There have been no reported deaths from people walking out of aeroplanes in mid flight either. Should we open the plane doors and let people crack on if they want to until we've stacked up enough evidence that it's a good idea to keep preventing this?

Jeez.

This is suggesting (again) that there must be sufficient collateral damage to females, (sufficient, proven, probably only by certain sources and when the sun is in the house of Orion and the wind is in the south west, beyond all doubt and debate, in enough numbers, and we're talking actual injury and quite possibly death) to justify limiting the absolute freedom of some males to do something obviously not in the best interests of any female. Despite the alternatives open to them.

This is also not taking into account that as with refuges, prisons, bathroom attacks, hospital ward incidents etc, where problems arise for females

a) there are serious incentives to avoid reporting harm happening to females under such circumstances, and where possible to deny and cover up that it happened

b) reporting it is in itself regarded as an act of transphobia which risks inviting behaviours no agency wants to have to deal with

c) this suggests (again) that there is an acceptable amount of harm to females and invites debate on at what point actual bodily harm and life changing/life destroying consequences to females becomes sufficient to justify slightly limiting the freedoms and personal feelings of some males.

sexnotgender

Well yes. Hence my asking about official statistics collected by clubs and reported to world rugby.

Is the Hannah you are talking about a rugby player? The person I am thinking of plays Australian rules football (a different code of football so by the activists argument would be considered totally irrelevant). And then volleyball.

And between Ross Tucker and Dr Hinton, they have been very patient and busy to explain just why the studies are still completely relevant to modeling risk for rugby. Ross Tucker has started being quite pointed as to the reason those disagreeing continue to persist with their cyclical points. Because they simply don’t want to.