RFU clears TW to play at *all* levels of rugby

[Kit19]

the absolute fuckers!!!

I've just had the following response from RFU:

The RFU along with other nations including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA has not chosen to adopt the World Rugby Transgender Guidelines at this time and will keep its current policy in place for now.

The current policy follows World Rugby’s former transgender guidelines where athletes must apply to the RFU for permission to play. For transgender females this includes providing evidence of testosterone levels below 5 nmol/L continuously for a period of at least 12 months immediately prior to application and they must keep their serum testosterone concentration below that level for as long as they wish to play in the female category. All requests are reviewed by a panel including the RFU Head of Regulation & Integrity, RFU Player Welfare Manager and a medical representative appointed by the RFU. It is important to note that we have fewer than ten transgender women currently playing in England and there has been no associated increase in injury.

The ban proposed by World Rugby would mean excluding those people immediately without any ability for them to appeal or for their particular circumstances to be considered individually.

The RFU welcomes the work undertaken by World Rugby however it believes the evidence is not advanced enough for us to be content that a blanket ban could not be challenged.

The RFU wants to keep the welfare of all players at the heart of its decision making. At the same time, rugby has always been an inclusive sport and so when considering this complex subject, we believe we also need to make sure we are taking an approach which supports inclusivity while protecting fairness and safety for female players.

The World Rugby Transgender Guidelines have created many sensational headlines and while this is a complex subject that invokes many strong views, it is important to highlight that the RFU response is carefully considered.

As a next step the RFU will work with other Unions to continue to develop scientific work, to answer outstanding questions so that we can develop guidelines that can be implemented globally. Our aim is to work with World Rugby to find a solution that is as inclusive as it can be, whilst achieving fairness and safety for women. The RFU will also undertake further consultation with players in the women’s game to understand their views.

I'm not satisfied with their response, it is clearly because they are scared of being sued by the "fewer than ten" players if there were to ban them with immediate effect.

If anyone has any intelligent points that I can go back with, please be my guest!

It is important to note that we have fewer than ten transgender women currently playing in England and there has been no associated increase in injury.

it would be good to ask how they capture and analyse the injury data - do they record the birth sex/transgender status of any player causing an injury (what sort of injuries get recorded - hospital visits only?) and grade the severity of the injury?

Or are they just looking at the total number of injuries recorded for women's matches for eg. and conclude that the number of injuries are within a 'normal' range. If they only have 10 transgender players then the injuries that they personally cause may not be enough to make a noticeable difference across the total of injuries but the severity/number of injuries caused by those players could be significant.

Thanks for keeping us updated - I am so horrified by their approach to this.

Maybe ask them why they split the youngsters at age 12(?)? What changes with male and female bodies to make it safe at age 18 to mix them and not at age 13?

If it is only 10 transgender players, why are they being prioritised over the safety of the hundreds of women they will play with?

What measures do they have in place for safeguarding/privacy while changing/showering and while in the scrums? What happens to the women who do not want to shower with a male bodied person? What measures do they have to provide for religious requirements?

"The ban proposed by World Rugby would mean excluding those people immediately"
This is blatantly untrue and deliberately emotive - would they be banned from playing in the male category? I think not.

"rugby has always been an inclusive sport "
Is this true? Have women ALWAYS been welcome to play rugby? Again, I think not. Not that it is relevant, as rugby can include EVERYONE into their sex category.

Well those people wouldn’t be banned from
Playing rugby would they? Just women’s rugby

"It is important to note that we have fewer than ten transgender women currently playing in England and there has been no associated increase in injury."
How many women have missed out on places in teams because of these male born people taking places that should be for women?
How many women have lost places in teams because they didn't want to train, play (with or against), change, shower etc, with male born people?
How many women and girls won't take up rugby at all now because they are worried about their safety and/or dignity, and/or because their religious/cultural beliefs make it impossible for them to join in a mixed sex sport. (It is mixed sex now, as even when joining a team that has no male born players, you can never guarantee you won't be asked to play against a team that has male born players)

I'm genuinely interested to know what are the rules for males under 18 but over aged 12, surely they are too young to take medication (and I don't agree that they should take drugs), but how else will they qualify to play in the women's team if they can't reduce their testosterone? Maybe there is no route into girls/women's rugby for them, which would be a good thing and would protect teenage girls, but I'm not clear.

I’ve had the same standard response ignoring the questions I’ve asked.

@keepwomensportforwomen

I'm genuinely interested to know what are the rules for males under 18 but over aged 12, surely they are too young to take medication (and I don't agree that they should take drugs), but how else will they qualify to play in the women's team if they can't reduce their testosterone? Maybe there is no route into girls/women's rugby for them, which would be a good thing and would protect teenage girls, but I'm not clear.

If the Scottish rugby union is anything to go by then they are welcomed with open arms. I believe a letter from mummy and daddy suffices.

How this letter mitigates the risk they pose I’m unclear on.

Sorry it’s U16s that need a letter from mummy and daddy. U18s just need to sign a declaration.

@purple5 the real question is why these 10 males were ever allowed to play with the women in the first place. Why did the RFU shunt them off into the women’s game without any consultation with those affected rather than trying to accommodate them alongside other of the same sex? That would have been real inclusivity! This could have been done, even for those with GRCs. They are also missing the point that it is a zero sum game - including them pushes women out, so it is the very opposite of inclusive. They need to grow a pair and say no to these narcissists. There is no human right to cheat.

Ps I would also ask on what grounds they chose not to apply the single sex emotion under the Equality Act when it would have been fully open to them to do so.

Yes yesterday’s that is absolutely the question, there is no way that should have been allowed. There’s a long list of questions that need to be asked about that

Damn autocorrect- “exemption”

I am going to push back and re-ask my questions. Surely the individuals play in their sex based group until it is proven safe for them to play in the opposite sex group.

What you don’t do is ignore the research done by your governing body.

Final point - if RFU are worried about the 10 suing, why don’t they issue a moratorium on new permissions being issued until there is evidence to show that mixed rugby does not increase the risks for women? This is an obvious additional safeguard in light of the World Rugbt evidence.

I think the worry about legal action has caused this problem. For years these NGBs knew they were overwhelmingly male and pale, then organisations such as Stonewall came along with promises of inclusivity could colour them all with rainbows immediately.

Talking to DH about this in cycling, he thinks after such public accusations of sexism a few years ago they employed a load of younger, woke, rainbow thinking people to solve their inclusivity problem, and no-one was clever enough/brave enough/cared enough to understand any potential problems.

As a next step the RFU will work with other Unions to continue to develop scientific work, to answer outstanding questions so that we can develop guidelines that can be implemented globally

Surely the scientific research should be done before biological males are allowed play women's Rugby? As a safety precaution surely that is the most logical choice? They're basically saying they are prioritising people feelings over risk of injury and fairness

I wait to see what the referees make of it.

Have an female rugby players said anything about this at all?

Great points, thank you all, I'm typing away at my response!

Sorry to be lazy, but can someone re-post the evidence that testosterone levels are not a good indicator of strength etc?

@Purpler5 news.ki.se/new-study-on-changes-in-muscle-mass-and-strength-after-gender-affirming-treatment-may-have-an

So they’re worried about those 10 people suing. Why aren’t they more worried about being sued by a woman severely injured by a player with a male body?

I got the same response.

The final sentence was:

The RFU will also undertake further consultation with players in the women’s game to understand their views

I mean, you would assume they'd already asked the female players, wouldn't you?