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

I’m not looking for one. Like I said. Nor am I going to be bullied into looking for a 10 year old article because once again, someone from this country won’t accept one of our claims of racism by a sports writer here. I’ve discussed it plenty with people outside of this little bubble who saw it too. Now we should probably stop derailing and get back to the topic.

Asking for evidence of serious accusation = bullying

Righto

Whether it is a kickabout with your mates or competing at an elite level, it brings people together and encourages them to achieve amazing things. It is vital that the benefits are open to everyone, and that includes lesbian, gay, bi and transpeople.

From the times article..

Erm, why is it always made out that saying transwomen shouldn't play with women due to their sex..means they are excluded from playing fullstop? Noone wants transwomen banned from sport. Never been said, except by those trying to argue that half the world are bigots. Its similar to the 'wish/think they don't exist' nonsense

See also - not letting transwomen use the female changing areas..is making them unable to participate in daily life as they no longer can get changed Again, nope. Sex segregation is for a reason..and that reason is absolutely not transphobia.

Erm, why is it always made out that saying transwomen shouldn't play with women due to their sex..means they are excluded from playing fullstop?

Because simply saying they're excluded from women's rugby just doesn't tug at the ole heartstrings in the same way that insinuating they're banned from ALL rugby does. They rely on emotive language.

If they say it's just women's rugby they're being reasonably excluded from, the only response they'll get is "well, duh!"

It's just women's rugby they're being reasonably excluded from.

....(awaits reply)

Stephen Jones has started to respond to some comments, in case someone wants to discuss with him.

I’ve never seen that before Igneo - it’ll be interesting to see if he starts applying some of the critical thinking skills that you might expect from a journalist.

Joanne Harper has something to say apparently. They were included in the rugby summit in Feb due to their research into transgender athletes.

www.outsports.com/2020/8/28/21405145/joanna-harper-world-rugby-transgender-athlete-ban-science-research-transphobia

I find this quote quite concerning. (They have a paper due for review and publication)

Although she can’t release details of the paper still being researched, Harper did share one crucial finding with Outsports:

“One of the things that we note in that paper is that if you look cross-sectionally at the data, you can see that the trans women in these groups, prior to starting hormone therapy, have substantially reduced strength and muscularity when compared to cisgender males,” she said. “To understand that, you need to go beyond this idea of hormones and to look at the population of trans women. If you look at trans women as a population group, trans women are far more likely to starve themselves so they can look like models than to build muscle. That’s the population they’re studying as opposed to athletic trans women.”

Why should any studies relating to rugby include the population she refers to rather than athletes? And are they saying because they are in this weakened form, They should not be considered male? They have already morphed.

Also, this person proposed that because there is so few tackles done by transwomen in a game that the 20-30% statistic is really no where near. (Wtf). My eyes have rolled out of my head. God help the one, two or three women that the transwoman tackles in that game. I am quite sure that they would not think the minuscule risk that they might get tackled will make up for the fact that the actual tackle they were in had a 20-30% chance of causing injury. They talk about spreading the risk over games because there are so few tackles made by a transwoman. Talk about missing the actual point.... you know, that each of those tackles brings the 20-30% increased risk, it simply doesn’t get portioned out.

And don’t forget the other advantages that a transwoman brings to the game that also cannot be forgotten about regarding fairness.

No wonder pseudo science is on the rise with academics like this!!!!

Those Harper quotes are so disingenuous. Looking on the bright side, of those are Harper’s best arguments, Harper does not have a leg to stand on.

Reading the tweets to Ross Tucker’s threads has been interesting. Harper was included at the summit, as was a transman rugby player. The major complaints have been a) not enough representation by transwomen rugby players (there were two advocacy groups for them there, surely the responsibility fell on the advocacy groups to have representatives that were transwomen). And b) not enough data. Well we have touched on the lack of injury data (not collected specifically as it would be deemed phobic) or studies (that is surely due to them being shut down as being potentially phobic). The lack of studies needs to be acknowledged to be a remnant of the ‘no debate’ era firmly policed by lobby groups that represented their interests.

From a legal perspective I think rugby clubs would be extremely foolish to follow stonewall. In uk, principle for risk assessments is tolerably safe & as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). When deciding if a risk is ALARP, first consideration is 'what is best practice?' . As World Rugby have commissioned a study which showed that women are at risk & have directed that teams be single sex, a rugby club could not defend itself from legal action in event of woman being injured by a TW.

New Women’s Rugby Survey to help close sex data gap

www.world.rugby/news/582483/global-womens-rugby-survey-gender-data-gap

The survey covers topics including rugby experience, education around concussion, and the impact the menstrual cycle has on training and performance.
“There are many differences between male and female rugby players which are not limited to physical differences (although these are substantial),” Williams told World Rugby. “What we aim to achieve through this survey is learn as much as we can about playing experience, develop a database for normative values for things like heights and weights for different positions from women at different levels around the world.

From February, very relevant here too, all this work on safety and concussion and you can see why they’re seeking to change the eligibility rules in women’s rugby:

But recent research suggests female players are at a greater risk of suffering concussion than men - and the effects are more severe.

Swansea University is carrying out a pioneering study to understand why.

The work is also studying if changes to the way female rugby players train can cut the risk of concussive injuries.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-wales-51434749

Australian MP Nita Green says banning trans women from women’s rugby is transphobic:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8680513/amp/Campaign-ban-transgender-women-rugby-transphobic-says-Labor-politician.html

@greeboclovis

From a legal perspective I think rugby clubs would be extremely foolish to follow stonewall. In uk, principle for risk assessments is tolerably safe & as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). When deciding if a risk is ALARP, first consideration is 'what is best practice?' . As World Rugby have commissioned a study which showed that women are at risk & have directed that teams be single sex, a rugby club could not defend itself from legal action in event of woman being injured by a TW.

This is my thought, I don't see how any club could now protect itself from a massive lawsuit the first time a woman gets injured by a transwoman. And then once that's gone against you how do you justify carrying on with the policy?

I don't see how any club could now protect itself from a massive lawsuit the first time a woman gets injured by a transwoman Yeah, they all have safety commitments and policies so it would be stupid for any Union not to go with the proposals, but NZ are indicating they aren’t.

First ‘nazi’ and extermination. Now world rugby is being called the klan for daring to protect women.

twitter.com/theproject_ed/status/1300470452188520455?s=21

Because the exceptional horror of dragging terrified people out of their homes and burning or lynching them for their colour of their skin is exactly the same as saying to a male person "no, you can only play this sport with other males and not females, because otherwise you might hurt or even kill them."

The utter disrespect and crassness to people who have really suffered under regimes such as the ones so casually referred to in conjunction with pique over the word 'no' and limits to personal desire..... words fail. Awful.

As academia is so woke - I wonder what will happen to the Boat Race in a few years. I can easily see that being a route in to Oxbridge.

Do the women have a separate race?

Yes they do, it got televised for the first time a couple of years ago.

Bring it on then - it's watched by millions isn't it?

Yes millions, incredibly popular. Rowing is an elitist sport. Women and girls have had to fight extremely hard to join, even the private school ones. The London day girls group had to fund raise hard to get a boat house- some girls schools don’t have access so have to pay the boys schools to use theirs at an extra cost of £400-500 or more a term. I would wager that allowing males in their category after all their struggle to get access and then recognition, would be met with fierce resistance in women’s rowing. I didn’t even think to look at their rules about it. Anyone know?

Interesting that SW has continued their tweeting without comments allowed.

Ross Tucker keeps mentioning up and coming study/ies that are being peer reviewed at the moment. Obviously, as he knows about it, it will reinforce World Rugby's position otherwise, he would be flagging it up with the board.

I am very curious as to what is in the pipeline. I am going to look forward to what both sides discover.