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 have seen that clip being posted on twitter in rugby threads. Well done!

The only thing I’d say about the clip, is that tackles like that happen men on men, small men v big forwards, quite often. So I think that’s what the response might be, there are loads of clips that could be used to counter that one- obviously the fact it’s Male on female creates an immediate discomfort though. I’d be wary of too much emphasis on it.

@ThinEndoftheWedge

The Guardian, as ever, inadvertently bringing sunlight to this s*itshow.

As other posters stated - that clip - awful - needs to trend on Twatter.

It’s not inadvertent in this case. Sean Ingle is all about fairness in sport. I’m sure he’s an ally. This is deliberate. It’s inadvertent in the sense the subs let him publish it as it was.

Just noticed on twitter that ‘non-binary’ people has been tacked on to the rugby debate. It is just distraction really.

I’m really enjoying this open demonstration of how the ideology ties people’s hands. You can’t not include non-binary males in this, because you have to adhere to the whole theology. Nothing less is permissible. Transwomen are women, transmen are men, non binary people are valid. End of. You can’t use hormonal or surgical transition to gatekeep, because that’s transphobic agains people who don’t avail themselves of it, so it has to stand or fall on identity alone. Therefore, if transwomen must be accommodated in the women’s team, so must non binary femmes, demi girls, genderqueer etc. As posted above, the bucket of “non men” is ever expanding.

I’ve watched the evolution of transactivism for some years now, and the stakes will always be raised in this way. Always.

Depending on your viewpoint, it’s either Acceptance without exception, or classic hubristic overreach

@DianasLasso

Christ on a bike, Deltoids. That clip is awful.

And the responses - the number of men rubbing their thighs together at the thought of a woman being seriously injured. It's like a one-stop-shop illustration of Greer's comment about "women have no idea how much men hate them." I scrolled down looking for a man to say "hang on a mo, that's not right..." but there weren't any!

I saw one or two. But yes, the main reaction from men on that thread seemed to be absolute glee, and "Equal pay and all that" (what?) and "She deserved it, what did she expect?"

Wow so many men absolutely despise women and clearly see themselves as the superior beings, don't they

This was just being discussed on Sky sports news. It had input from both sides of the argument. More sunlight for those watching that didn't know about this. I genuinely believe most viewers will agree with us on this.

I’ve ploughed my way through International Gay Rugby’s submission to World Rugby. Wow, it’s long. Essentially their position is that there simply isn’t the science to say that transwomen are any more dangerous than “cis” women, and it’s incredibly mean not to let people play according to their gender identity.

I was surprised by the amount of support they seem to have mobilised, to be honest. They ran a survey, and I will confine myself to noting that the responses were uncommonly wordy and quite thematic in nature. I will say no more.

What I did wonder after I finished it, after repeatedly reading that anyone who opposes full inclusion is “transphobic”, is: is there any way to oppose this that isnt viewed as transphobic? For example, when they look at Dr Hilton’s work, they find it lacking not in itself, but that it couldn’t ever be credible because “she’s notoriously transphobic”.

IGR firmly believes that the underlying drive of this proposed ban is not safety, as purported by the working group, but rather the transphobia-fueled perception that trans women have natural physical advantages due to being assigned a gender marker at birth that is inconsistent with their true identity.

It’s not possible to engage in good faith with someone who says “ah, but I know what you really think”.

There’s a lot of sleight of hand going on, too. They urge WR to follow the existing 2019 policy regarding “transgender people and non binary folkx” (sic), but when you read that policy, it doesn’t mention non binary, it’s strictly about how to apply the IOC guidelines around testosterone supporession etc. its also long on previously debunked stats on 41% suicide rates and “life expectancy of 35 years for trans people in the America’s”.

A mendacious document. I’d have more time for them if they came out and said “let’s just abandon the idea of men’s and women’s teams altogether”.

World Rugby will likely adopt these policies but as said leave it up to individual unions. That’s the concern I think for us. So once we hear what they’re doing, we’ll need to look at every Union and see what their position is. A lot of signatures to the IGR thing that I saw were from USA women’s players- 7’s. NZ rugby union has said they won’t adopt the outright ‘ban’ as they call it. I don’t know if other unions have said anything. When I write to RFU a few years back, they simply said their policy follows world rugby. So I expect them to fall in with world rugby on this but I’ll be checking.

There’s a lot of sleight of hand going on

It certainly feels that way. Even the Skynews had more representation from the 'inclusive' side. And Harper appears to be continuing to push the 'the majority of transwomen are focused on looking like models so the studies are definitely not reliable for athletic transwomen' line.

(As an aside, the fact that they are up front that eating disorders seem to be a major part of transition does somewhat confirm mental health issues are not being addressed adequately.)

It just needs rugby to keep the line that they have seen all the science (even the studies that the inclusive side submitted) and they feel that the science supports their decision. And that they had two advocacy groups present and if that was not representative, what would have been enough?

It also really showed a mockery of them saying that they have so much ground support when over 60% of women players answered the survey saying 'no' to playing. And that there would be equal chance that the 30% undecided would say 'no' in the future as well which would be an overwhelming majority of women NOT supporting the push for inclusion.

Maybe they mean that they have so much support from MEN that women need to include transwomen against the evidence of harm. Plus the very vocal minority who think they can disprove the science by yelling louder or arguing with inane whataboutery until the time runs out.

Maybe they mean that they have so much support from MEN that women need to include transwomen against the evidence of harm
I’d be surprised if any support was from inside the rugby community, players, coaches, refs or fans. I have had lots of discussion with Male fans and amateur players and none support the inclusion of males. Literally none. Most were surprised it was allowed and that this was a reversal of the rules. So all I can say is as much sunlight as possible on this, the better.

A lot of signatures to the IGR thing that I saw were from USA women’s players- 7’s.

I think there's two things going on here. One is that TWAW is such a fundamental article of faith on American campuses (and rugby in the US is a university-educated niche sport, not a grass-roots sport) that no young woman in that environment will even question it.

The other (which I've noticed talking to female American friends who are into sport, some at a professional level) is that there is a deeply engrained attitude of "if we admit to any weakness at all - and admitting we're less physically strong/slower is an admission of weakness - then the whole edifice of feminism will come tumbling down." This in turn has two parts to it. Firstly, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is actually about, IMO, but they seem to confuse the campaign for women's equal human rights and women's liberation with some sort of entrenched internalised misogyny whereby when they think of a human they think "man", and any deviation among women from this standard issue male human is seen (wrongly) as a weakness. There's a kind of muddled "human rights only get given to us if we prove we're fully human, and fully human means like a proper, male human, so we must never, ever admit that we are in any way different from the proper default humans, i.e. the male ones, or they'll take our human rights away from us."

The second substrand, I think, is a nature versus nurture/ physiology versus socialisation issue. The argument goes "we don't know what women's sporting achievements would look like in a world where all girls were encouraged from infancy to be as physically active as boys", which is true. This moves to "Therefore any differences in performance we do see are down to socialisation" which at best is unproven, and in fact is much more likely straight up false when it comes to physical performance measures in sport.

DianasLasso Totally agree with what you’ve said there, especially as it’s like you say a very niche sport- for both male & female. Nations with a longer history of rugby will be far less likely to take that position.

You realise that women have no power at all really. That we just don't matter.

You'd think they'd be worried that when a woman is seriously injured by a transwoman (a risk that no-one will be able to say they didn't know about) there'll be one hell of a backlash. But the backlash won't matter because it's only a woman who's been harmed.

I think the queen needs to wade in. QE1 wouldn’t have taken any prisoners.

So Claire Chandler (Australian senator) has to explain her comments to the Australia Equality commissioner.

This is bonkers.

Claire is amazing - such calm fury!!

We need a couple of her here - my nerves could do with the government getting a wriggle on and sorting this out!

Oh she is brilliant. The anti discrimination commissioner thinks there is no need for single sex facilities? Wtf? It’s our right arsehole

Note World rugby do say individual unions will have flexibility, so even if they seem firm on this, we should really be concerned with individual unions:

In a statement to Sky Sports News, rugby's global governing body insisted individual unions will be given flexibility: "The eventual guidelines will provide guidance for unions, recognising the possibility for a flexible approach on a nation-by-nation basis at community level."

While in England, the RFU has said it will: "Undertake a fair and thorough consultation listening to all evidence and views."

Tim O’Connor was one of the experts at the consultation and had this response to Joanna Harper’s claims that try and discredit the evidence world rugby used:

mobile.twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1301550238180704257

The article ends with a female rugby player saying that she is confident going up against men(!) and it's not size that matters, or strength, but her 'skill set'.

That attitude must be terrifying for World Rugby. Even if she has signed an air tight disclaimer it’s a very irresponsible message.

No amount of skill can control the impact of another player’s body.

That single player doesn’t speak for the majority in the survey who say they are not comfortable. Interesting the article ends with that and not with the 2/3rds who are not comfortable.

The only thing I’d say about the clip, is that tackles like that happen men on men, small men v big forwards, quite often. So I think that’s what the response might be, there are loads of clips that could be used to counter that one- obviously the fact it’s Male on female creates an immediate discomfort though.

Of course, what you don't see is women tackling men like that. Because it doesn't happen.

The issue the Guardian article and the letter skate over is that any safety standard set will exclude some people who identify as trans.

However, instead of arguing for a particular standard, the proposal seems to be ‘no standards and see what happens’.

Meanwhile Stonewall expands the definition of trans to include anyone who thinks Pride marches are a fun addition to the festival scene.

You can’t use hormonal or surgical transition to gatekeep, because that’s transphobic agains people who don’t avail themselves of it, so it has to stand or fall on identity alone. Therefore, if transwomen must be accommodated in the women’s team, so must non binary femmes, demi girls, genderqueer etc

This is so true, Sophocles. Ideological overreach, as you say.