Woman in men's rugby and misleading journalism

[JamieCannister]

Even as I start typing I'm not sure what I am going to say or exactly the point of this thread. I just stumbled upon a story whilst looking for something else.

Ellia Green seems to be ethnically Fijian, was born in 1993 in Fiji, and moved with her Polish and English adoptive parents to Australia when she was five. Her adoptive father died when she was young, and her adopting mum died 7 years ago when she was 25. She is in a lesbian relationship and they have a child. She claims to be the dad.

She had what appears to be a very successful (elite) career in women's Rugby Sevens, and some sort of a short career at pro level women's rugby proper.

She then came out as a trans'man' who has not changed her name and uses she/her and they/them pronouns.

Then there's this...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/rugby-2025-how-former-rugby-sevens-star-ellia-green-rediscovered-his-love-for-the-sport-transition/news-story/bc300a407be6209415139a8daed30467

Taken at face value the story is that a highly talented female rugby player has become a man and is competing against men at rugby.

Why are they not making clear that she has gone from elite level women's, to the New South Wales Suburban league? The suburban league (having googled) is the third level of rugby in NSW, and her team compete (and finish towards the bottom) in the 5th of 6th divisions at the third level. Players have to pay their club a membership fee in order to play.

“Now, when I go up against some of these guys, it’s not that’s not really much different from the power and speed of athletes on the 7s circuit that I played with who are a whole other level.”

The implication is that women can compete with men, but the reality seems to be more that an elite woman can compete near the very bottom of the men's amateur rugby pyramid. And even then "it’s not that’s not really much different" suggests to me that she's not finding it easy.

Then there's the implication that transition was some sort of joyous thing, when it seems clear that she was depressed as a result of her women's rugby career coming to an end and the loss of her mother, and that almost certainly played a part in (what I believe are) forming the mental health co-morbidities that are almost always present when women transition.

Women need a single sex category.

In order to have equality men must also have a single sex category.

Why is a lower number of single sex races for women men's problem to resolve?

In Season 1 of Peacemaker, the well-trained, fit young woman kicks the @### of three men in a bar - ok, well done.

In Season 2, she starts a bar fight in a bikers bar...and gets the %^£ beaten out of her. 1 slight but well-trained woman is no match for 5 or 6 big lads 😞 hope people learned something

Women have a single sex category. Men do not in cycling and many other sports. The difference in access to sport between women and men absolutely is men's problem to assist in solving. Only a MRA would think otherwise.

She can't play for a women's team because she has transitioned.

Not true. She can play for a women’s team as long as she isn’t taking testosterone. She may have “transitioned” (she’s cut her hair off🤨) but that doesn’t mean she is on testosterone and there’s no reason she can’t play on a women’s team otherwise.

I mean, you could have just googled her and made up your own mind on whether she's taking testosterone. I'll save you the trouble:

As long as she isn’t taking testosterone at the time she plays she can play in the women’s competition. She can stop testosterone at any time and play in the women’s competition, nothing is stopping her from doing so, so there is no reason she can’t play in a women’s competition other than self exclusion, not because she has “transitioned” as you suggested.

Well yes. I'm not sure what your point is. She has transitioned medically, which means taking testosterone, which makes her ineligible for the female category. Her choice, which I'm sure she's very happy with.

Yes, I assume synthetic testosterone is a one way street when it comes to ineligibility for the female category.

Although I guess that presumably depends on the sports body in that country, similar to how some countries ban anyone caught doping for life (e.g. in the Olympics) and others have a fixed-term ban for x years. Obviously the impact of any synthetic testosterone (males doping with steroids or females medically transitioning) will include permanent changes to muscle development.

No, she can stop taking testosterone and be eligible for the women’s category. It’s only a preclusion if it’s being actively taken.

But her choice of taking it should mean she has excluded herself from the only category she should be eligible for. It shouldn’t mean she is eligible for the men’s category, on account of her being at risk of death, despite testosterone being taken.

Why is she at risk of death? It’s local club rugby not the Isle of Man TT. There is a strict protocol for assessing women who wish to play in the men’s category, which she has passed. Sure if she was some wee lass she might be at increased risk of injury but she was 80kg when she was pro and likely a damn site more now she’s on the juice.

Because women, regardless of testosterone doping, are at increased risk of traumatic brain injury and serious neck injuries while playing against other women, so it stands to reason that risk is even higher when playing against men. An 80kg woman is in now way comparable to an 80kg man, even with testosterone. Besides, look at the Instagram photo further down in the article where she’s stood with other women. She isn’t big at all.

There isn’t a strict protocol. That’s oxymoronic. A strict protocol would recognise the inherent safety risk of a female playing in men’s rugby. It doesn’t matter if it’s a local low level club game. It just needs one man, to hit her that little bit harder, or a little bit faster than expected, with more mass/velocity and force of the impact and she’s at risk of serious injury. Most serious injuries are inflicted while making an injury. Is she going to avoid tackling men much bigger than her with greater muscle mass and bone density?

If you think injuries can’t happen in a random club game, just pop down to your local club any Saturday. And if it happens, and she’s injured, who is liable? Is she? Is the club? What about the player who causes that injury? How would he feel if he tackled her/was tackled by her and caused a serious injury?

The protocol prioritises identity over safety. Because if safety was actual considered there would be no way she’d be allowed to play with men.

This is an older story. Ellia has been playing with a men’s side for at least two seasons, if not more. I do agree with you though that the risk to her is higher than if she was playing with women. At grade level, the men don’t just play with less skill, they are rough. Fights break out on the pitch often. Even if her team is inclusive, other sides are likely just huge blokes playing footy, and they’re not known for manners.

The article says the game at the beginning of this season was her first in years.

Green transitioned in 2022, but didn’t pick up a rugby ball again until this year when he received a chance call from his old rugby coach at the Warringah Rats Rugby Club.

ETA: the article is from earlier this year.

If the category is called "men", then a female should not be eligible.

Oh dear, doping with high levels of testosterone is not good for the female body. I think of those East German female athletes. Even other steroid use is dangerous for men and women, and can lead to increased risk of heart attack.

Her skull, and skeleton will remain of the same thickness. She possibly has to sign something so that they couldn't be sued if injured (or worse) as she is more in danger than the men (from the men) on the pitch. The worst of all worlds really. In the event of injury (or worse), which I hope doesn’t happen, I wonder if even life insurance would pay out to her partner and child as she may be deemed to have recklessly endangered herself.

Woman who do this are grown women, not children. And they aren't unaware of how their sports function.

It's nothing new, it has nothing to do with gender ideology, fundamentally. It's been around since I was a child. It's how we have had women playing professional hockey, and getting paid for it, 20 years ago.

People do get injured in high level sports frequently.

There is a huge, huge, differernce between saying males can't be on women's teams, and telling adult women they have to stay out of male dominated teams even if they are able to make the cut.

There is a huge, huge, differernce between saying males can't be on women's teams, and telling adult women they have to stay out of male dominated teams even if they are able to make the cut.

There is no difference. Safety and fairness goes both ways and should be prioritised over inclusion. It doesn’t matter one bit that she is a grown woman. Her own desires to be accepted for her identity have trumped safety and fairness. It is not safe. It doesn’t matter that grown women have done it in ice hockey in the past. That wasn’t safe either and it’s a miracle no one suffered (unless they did?). We are talking about rugby. A direct contact sport where it’s compulsory for bodies to run into each other, not happens occasionally like in hockey. Women have never historically played men’s club rugby. Ever.

Being able to “make the cut” is completely immaterial. Her skill level in no way mitigates the physical differences between the sexes. She could play in an under 18s school boys’ team competition and be at high risk. There are school boys aged 13-15 bigger and stronger than her and would pose a greater risk to her. In Australian lower grade club rugby there are massive players.

The inherent unfairness is that men are being placed in a position where they could knowingly or unknowingly injure a woman with their play. All it would take is one man to do the wrong thing and she would be in danger. Alternatively, you’re asking men to be aware they’re playing against a woman and they could hold back. A good man wouldn’t hit her as hard as he would another man. He would be soft in the tackle or the contact.

It has everything to do with gender ideology. Women playing hockey was due to lack of opportunity for women. Green has plenty of opportunity to play with other women. She could play with a women’s team. She could even still play elite women’s rugby or even elite rugby league if she dropped the testosterone. But she won’t do either because neither would fit with her gender ideology choice.

You say she’s a grown woman and not a child. But it’s not a mature decision at all, and it’s been enabled by Rugby Australia in direct conflict with World Rugby’s policy.

She is not safe. Again, look at the Instagram photo towards the end of the article. Look at her size compared to other women. Look at her legs.

Even if you thought that this particular woman is better equipped to deal with the rigours of being hit by men, it sets a precedent that any woman can play in women’s rugby if they identify that way. All that’s needed is a medical specialist to sign you off (and when do gender doctors ever say no to their patients?) and a coach to assess that it’s safe (isn’t it convenient that a coach was an old friend of Green?)

It’s a safeguarding nightmare.

And similar to the issue that was brought up with football (soccer) with the FA, their policy makes these women ultimately take sole responsibility for their decision, which is an acknowledgment of the inherent risk in what they’re doing. If the risk wasn’t a concern, then the sporting organisation would shoulder the responsibility without any form of assessment and without any consent form. But they don’t. And there is nothing in the policy protecting the men she plays against.