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

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49298550

This is Kelly the rugby player.
Am I imagining it, or did Kelly quite seriously injure a coach in the original piece? Like a broken arm or something.

An awfully one sided piece from the bbc I see...

Why is they “folded a girl like a deck chair” funny? The reporting here is astonishing.

It’s bit funny. It’s laughing at physically crumpling someone.

@Collidascope

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49298550

This is Kelly the rugby player.
Am I imagining it, or did Kelly quite seriously injure a coach in the original piece? Like a broken arm or something.

According to this article, Kelly fractured the coach's ankle:

www.newschain.uk/lifestyle/transgender-sport/transgender-rugby-player-blazing-trail-she-prepares-welsh-league-debut-1288

I think the BBC originally included that piece of information but then swiftly removed it.

mobile.twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1164511905907642368

Ah, not an arm, but fractured the coach's ankle. They deleted that bit from the BBC article, I think. It wasn't evoking quite the response they wanted.

Cross post, ZenZebra!

So there's the first example of an injury to answer the 'where's the evidence' demand.

Plus evidence of a fact and injury quickly tidied away out of sight as not supportive of the desired, kind narrative,.

@Collidascope

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49298550

This is Kelly the rugby player.
Am I imagining it, or did Kelly quite seriously injure a coach in the original piece? Like a broken arm or something.

I seem to recall it was a broken ankle. Interestingly it was originally mentioned in the bbc article but then removed.

It’s amazing this consultation by world rugby hasn’t happened sooner given the unbelievable amount of money and time spent on concussion and head injuries in general and the lengths they’ve gone to, really actually altering the game of rugby quite a bit with rule/law changes that even the players didn’t have time to adapt to- it would of been reflex reactions for older players from a decade or more of tackling a certain way and suddenly being told not to and red carded at the World Cup for it. But ruining players tournaments or suspending them for ages, indeed excluding them even temporarily was always justified because it was for the safety of everyone. Some still aren’t happy with the current tackle laws because of the science on head injury and the deaths. Yes, deaths. Yet here women were, some huge experiment, that nobody thought about till now.

I really should have read more before I posted 🙈

You don’t wait till there’s serious injury in sports like rugby these days, you make sure there’s little chance of it happening first.

I dont think it will make much difference whether its union or league in terms of risk profile, but one poster was saying league was less physical, which it just isn't, up until very recently league had much less strict rules in tackling, and fights are still more common than in high level Union matches.

In New Zealand youth Rugby is organised along weight divisions rather then age to mitigate against the risks posed by the Pacific island/Maori lads who develop physically at a much younger age. They saw decades ago that some 16 year old 90kg lad slamming into someone 25 kg lighter was probably not a good idea.

@DillonPanthersTexas

In New Zealand youth Rugby is organised along weight divisions rather then age to mitigate against the risks posed by the Pacific island/Maori lads who develop physically at a much younger age. They saw decades ago that some 16 year old 90kg lad slamming into someone 25 kg lighter was probably not a good idea.

You don’t really want to go down that route though as they’ll argue smaller TW are fine to play and it’s not just about size.

Not just lads! Lots of girls play rugby in NZ and it’s growing all the time. Us Polynesian girls are pretty solid in the leg department too. It’s wise to do it by weight while young, then as they get older and better trained they know how to tackle in a safer way with smaller players. As we know pound for pound men are still stronger overall

Sexnotgender they don’t do it past youth rugby. When you get to serious high school and beyond rugby, you are selected in your position based on your size ( and skill of course ), so in each position regardless of race you average out a similar weight and height. In fact one of the best all blacks is a Samoan New Zealander and he is small for an open side flanker & had to gain weight- he’s still small against other players though. The way to compare is to compare men’s and women’s International players, the size averages are very different.

Yes exactly. There’s not as many injuries in women’s rugby, not even close. The fact that there aren’t many trans women in rugby also impacts whether or not there is data on injuries but you’d also have to rely on reporting, and is there even data collection like that being requested by any rugby org? If it’s not part of the stats collected then you’ll never get that data. Besides, the evidence relies on accepted existing studies on what kinds of injuries occur in rugby and what the physical differences in speed, strength and mass between males and females are and how they affect injury severity and risk of injury. The studies don’t need to be rugby specific as biological factors and differences can be applied to any sport.

so the above-mentioned rugby player, according to the article suffered a career ending injury in their teens playing for East Wales (quite a high level), and also 'struggles with the demands of training sometimes' but has still managed to inflict at least one serious injury (coach broken ankle) and another potentially serious (we don't hear about the outcome for the girl who got folded like a deckchair by the 6 foot player). What would it be like with a fully fit trans person on the pitch!
Interestingly, I came across this person's girlfriend in the comments for the World Rugby rules - obviously arguing that they are no risk and should have every right to play with the women.

Anyone else feeling like Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence [sic] and all the other TRAs are just desperate to see some women seriously injured when they keep calling for statistics on actual injuries caused by transwomen in rugby specifically?

Yes.

It was apparent to everyone a very long time ago what the implications of it all were.

The only people left who fully support it are people who actively hate women and would happily see them hurt injured or killed at the hands of males.

There is no other conclusion to be had.

The only people left who fully support it are people who actively hate women and would happily see them hurt injured or killed at the hands of males.

And then, to add insult to serious injury, the severely-injured woman is then unable to even complain about what caused it, because then she'd be attacked all over again.

It's the ultimate in male dominance, again and again and again.

What I cannot accept is all the high level men who play that say nothing about this. They know how serious it is because they deal with the affects of Male physicality and strength on their own bodies, as men. They should speak out and all we’ve got is lovely Dan Leo. James Haskell has become some sort of LGBT hero, Caitlin Jenner is his friend apparently... he even said, I run the line with misogyny myself but I would never say anything homophobic or accept Israel Folau saying it blah blah it’s incredible these big strong men are too scared to simply say: males cannot be in female rugby, it’s too dangerous. Even Brian Moore called some of us women hysterical, while agreeing with the new proposals.

Probably because they think this is what we wanted.
That equality means we are happy to play with males as we are as good as them and this serves us right.

Pear I suspect too, like the clear evidence of 90% of assaults happening on female people perpetrated by males in mixed sex spaces, Karen White, Katie Whatzit and on and on, is that as soon as facts and incidents are raised, the goal posts just instantly shift and they're dismissed as insufficient or unjustifiable. There will never be enough evidence to put protecting (or even considering or mentioning) female people ahead of the freedoms of male people.

I just keep thinking: here we are, struggling to argue that the high risk of career/life destroying injury and death of females should be a reason to limit the freedom of choice of male people. Seriously. Injury and death is not considered justification enough. The idea of female people being of sufficient value to be allowed to group and have sports for themselves, for female sports to be valued, is way behind us. They're not even of sufficient value to be allowed consideration of physical safety according to Stonewall.

Should a society allow an adult to play on the under 8s team because inclusion and they're vulnerable and they identify as a child trapped in an adult's body? An able bodied adult to compete in the Paralympics because inclusion and they identify as a disabled person trapped in an able body? These aren't theoretical situations, people do identify this way as an equally sincere belief. What's the difference?