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

Student. All women know that we are different to men’s bodies.

At one point in this century so did all the sports bodies

Know the fuckers of sports bodies seem to have lost their collective brains and suddenly thought that men’s bodies are the same as women’s bodies

Make# you wonde4 why did we ever have women’s sports and men’s sport. Why did we ever separate the sexes in sport

🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Am in my twenties student but not erm ever been a student. But I recognise the difference between women and men in sport and everything else

It's actually sociopathic to pursue an agenda with such diabolical outcomes for women's safety and not even have the decency to acknowledge the issues.

But if you create a concept that provides a teflon coating from criticism and enables multiple opportunities to, er, trample over other people, I would be amazed if you didn't get such types rock up and take full advantage. And you can't appeal to a better nature that isn't there.

Oh dont worry everyone, I know you know the differences 😆 it is just unfortunate that the whole trans issue has been weaponized in such a way, especially as it could have been the case that it didn't impose on women's spaces in the way it has been. Certainly reading many of the forums on here over lockdown made me aware of things I hadn't even considered before.

I was just watching line of duty.

A line struck me. Below

A non exclusive relationship with the truth

The trans women who are doing this must be able to see the harm they are doing. This is what turns people like me off their cause.

Two years ago I would have said I was very supportive of trans people.

There is a balance between being kind to a fault and having absolutely no fucking care about the impact of your actions on others.

Hopefully this is the TWAW, no questions, coming home to roost. You can chant the mantra but you can’t make it true.

I think so many people have been ambivalent because it doesn’t affect them so going along with the pretence and not having to think about it.

Even Twitter responses are heartening. I saw Mermaids retweeted. It’s really scary to see how little interaction, liked and support Mermaids get in their Twitter for this or other causes and the level of their funding. Diversity and Equality and the LGBT movement have all been captured.

But if you create a concept that provides a teflon coating from criticism and enables multiple opportunities to, er, trample over other people, I would be amazed if you didn't get such types rock up and take full advantage. And you can't appeal to a better nature that isn't there.

Sacred castes have never ended well, historically speaking.

Really interesting in trying to get my ideas around this and picked it up on another thread.

In society we have an unwritten social contract. It doesn’t make us doormats but if our actions make others uncomfortable, unsafe or disadvantaged we have to consider that.

@littlbrowndog

I was just watching line of duty.

A line struck me. Below

A non exclusive relationship with the truth

Whilst I don't think the World Rugby guidance is going to change, I am quite worried that the inevitable restrictions on transwomen competing in contact sports could be used as an argument for earlier and more aggressive use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones: if a trans woman never goes through male puberty, the problems of greater muscle mass, increased bone density and power/strength advantages go away.

@InvisibleDragon

Whilst I don't think the World Rugby guidance is going to change, I am quite worried that the inevitable restrictions on transwomen competing in contact sports could be used as an argument for earlier and more aggressive use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones: if a trans woman never goes through male puberty, the problems of greater muscle mass, increased bone density and power/strength advantages go away.

I have already seen that argument being made on Twitter in response to this.

It's a ridiculous argument though, if puberty blockers result in a loss of bone density, rugby is the last sport you would want be playing.

but I believe there are greater health risks and therefore kids transitioning early would impact on their ability to play sport and especially at a professional level. Can't remember where I read that but on here somewhere and it was a link, so not a personal opinion

Also sport/exercise is amongst the advice given by some therapists as its meant to help mental health. Puberty blockers akd their side effects both mental and physical would remove the possibility of playing sports and ensuring that theres even less chance of improving mental wellbeing.

Honestly that's the idea I think more than removing advantages is. After all they have already removed the mental health condition status. They are desperately trying to ensure that kids do not get the chance to change their minds.

It's a ridiculous argument though, if puberty blockers result in a loss of bone density, rugby is the last sport you would want be playing.

I've seen them argue that earlier use of cross sex hormones might help to increase bone density. Of course there is not yet a large enough cohort of young people who have been given this treatment for there to be reliable results, so there is currently a drive to recruit children to do this particular experiment on.

It's a ridiculous argument though, if puberty blockers result in a loss of bone density, rugby is the last sport you would want be playing.

Well yes, having to take all sorts of complex cross sex hormone medications, problems with bone density, not having gone through any of the brain development changes of puberty etc are not really things that are compatible with rugby (or any sport really) at any kind of high level.

Since when did a 6 foot man mountain in a dress become more 'vulnerable' than a 5 foot slender female?

I thought it was the case that adult males who take oestrogen retain bone strength for longer because as women get older and the levels drop thats what causes our bones to become more fragile.

I also remember seeing an article of a state from a Dr that they are pushing to record the bone densities of these kids who have been on blockers on the tables/charts so basically they appear to show as normal.

Sorry not sure if I'm explaining that well. Obviously there will be whats considered a "normal range" if that range starts to include these low readings from medicated children then when they perform the bone scans required when a child is put on this path, their ranges are included im normal as opoosed to showing on the low side.

I'm not advocating for kids transitioning early -- I think it's a terrible idea!

I'm just worried that this argument that will be made -- and will carry more weight because there is a clear "disadvantage" to going through male puberty, because it bans you from the sport you're so passionate about.

I'm just worried that this argument that will be made -- and will carry more weight because there is a clear "disadvantage" to going through male puberty, because it bans you from the sport you're so passionate about

Currently theres massive push back on blockers. Nhs and other sites have had to update their guidence.

I am hoping that is signifying a change coming. Ultimately if they deem children at 10/11 /12 able to consent to blockers, we ALL know what they will claim to consent to next .

We must never stop pointing that out. Many mps have ignored this when written to. Its so obvious.

I may have missed earlier mention of this, but I saw @BethFisherSports tweet here: twitter.com/bethfishersport/status/1297131318883614720?s=21

and looked at the page she looked to. The map shows that there are actually UK clubs signing up in support of the pledge to allow TW in women’s rugby. Only 6 so far, but still - I can only hope they don’t really understand what they’ve signed up in support of.

lgbtiqsportalliance.org.uk/let-trans-women-play/

Haven't fully RTFT but I can't imagine rugby clubs are going to be a receptive audience for this dangerous nonsense? Even if they're "woke", rugby players are more likely than practically anyone to be fully aware of the strength differences between men and women.

Makes me wonder WTF Stonewall were thinking with this. Are they so misogynistic that they assume everyone else is the same, and that rugby players are all going to be just fine with womens' necks being broken?

DH was at school with a boy who ended up with a broken neck playing rugby. DS does contact martial arts and I still wasn’t happy with him playing rugby at school (turns out he didn’t like it anyway and didn’t choose it).

I would be very worried (for the girls) if schools mixed boys and girls playing rugby just as I would if they expected prepubescent kids to play against teams of teens. Don’t see why it’s different for adults unless everyone agrees.

It annoys me that Stonewall behave like petulant children. Just keep banging on and everyone will change there minds. I wonder if that will work in this instance. Given that Rugby now has the evidence about the big differences between men and women (most of us didn't need that evidence but nonetheless......) any women injured when playing against a MTF trans person would be in for a massive claim. Knowledge can't be put back in the box.

I don't think insurance companies would allow. Unless of course clubs were prepared to cough up ....not a chance

The stats are clear that most children will desist from their gender questioning at puberty so rushing them through treatment for any reason (including their possible future desire to participate in women's sports) is wrong so that needs to be addressed at source, not allowing all males to compete in women's sports if they wish.

Interesting that people arguing for this point are so concerned that some children may possibly wish to play rugby in the future but are not so bothered that the same children may wish to do other things in the future like have children or not have heavily scarred bodies from irreversible surgeries.