DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 93579--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: July 29, 2022, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: SiB link ---
>
> Think I’ve been fairly clear should you still have the
genitalia of a female you should play in a female team, and
viceversa, u til there is evidence that it causes no risk or
advantage
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't think the genitalia is what gives risk or advantage and
that does rather ignore the concept of surgery, but what I think
you're trying to say is that a trans man (assigned female at
birth) should play women's rugby and a trans woman (assigned
male at birth) should play men's rugby. Appreciate there's a
caveat regarding evidence. However:
1) How are we determining risk? Is a trans man playing women's
rugby not a risk? Is a trans woman playing men's rugby not at
risk?
2) How do we get the evidence if they're not allowed to compete
in a way that would generate the evidence? Again, catch-22.
3) Should we not have actual evidence that is directly
appropriate here? We don't seem to have any. That's the stated
reason why the RFU didn't go along with World Rugby's ban in the
first place.
Again, taking some tweets from that thread that I really do
recommend everyone reads
(
HTML https://twitter.com/YorkRILadies/status/1552652218288857093)
--- Quote ---
>
> In 2020 World Rugby banned trans women from competing citing
potential risk of injury. @RFU
> differed from World Rugby saying there wasn't enough evidence
to prove the additional risk at present. To our knowledge there
has been no additional evidence published since this decision.
>
> For a trans woman to compete at any level of rugby in England,
she must have stabilised testosterone under 5noml/L for 12
months. This is below many cis women. It takes time to reduce,
so we're looking at around 2 years medical transition before she
can participate.
>
> There is little evidence to prove that testosterone advantage
is retained after this stage. We are happy to be corrected about
this, if @RFU will release their evidence base.
>
> But male puberty! Yes, there is some evidence of retained
muscle mass. The paper central to this specifically says it
isn't applicable to athletes though. The current dataset is
incredibly limited. @RFU committed to further study, but are now
banning before studies can be made.
>
> Currently, RFU trans inclusion laws have a caveat that risk be
managed case-by-case. If a trans player posed an overt risk to
others, coaches or refs can veto their participation. The most
recent statement from @RFU criticises this as 'not necessarily
ensur[ing] inclusion'...
>
> ...
>
> After these steps there are currently 6 (yes 6) trans women
rugby players in England. If they all banded together, they
wouldn't have enough players for a 7s team. The '70 trans
people!' figure you may have seen includes trans men and NB
people, many of whom play different codes.
>
> The initial proposal was to 'monitor' trans women over 5'7 or
90kg. When this was announced, many players pointed out that
this is ✨most womens rugby players✨. At least 50%
of our playing squad fall into these categories. Size does not
correlate to skill - or safety.
>
> ...
>
> Plus, our world is small enough that brand new players often
share a field with much more experienced players with huge %
differences in strength & muscle mass. The same % differences we
are being told is so dangerous in trans women, but apparently
not in cis women.
>
> ...
>
> Current trans inclusion measures are flawed, but by and large
they work. There is no public evidence showing higher rate of
injury caused by our 6 trans players. No red cards, no
disciplinaries, no injuries. Again, we are happy to stand
corrected if @RFU will provide the data.
>
> The concerns being raised are problems cis women have always
faced and will continue to face, trans inclusion or none. The
@RFU
> are either withholding valuable scientific data or basing the
decision on 'what if's. This 'precaution' feels like a draconian
response to a non-issue.
>
--- End Quote ---
It is a genuinely thoughtful and thought-provoking thread. Again
I must stress that I do believe this isn't something where we
can just say "trans people can play in teams that match their
gender" (not sex, though sex isn't a binary etc etc) because I
am open to the safety concern, and the previous method of taking
things on a case-by-case basis makes sense to me.
It really is not as simple as going "well, the science says
this", when no, not really, and we're rejecting the possibility
to actually have science come up with useful answers by
producing a blanket ban. The argument also completely fails to
take into account trans men, and it definitely doesn't take into
account the risks to trans players of both genders.
#Post#: 93580--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: DOK
Date: July 29, 2022, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A protest was organised. Might have done with more notice
HTML https://twitter.com/VeritySmith19/status/1552921362922078208
#Post#: 93584--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: July 29, 2022, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just thought I'd mention that it's not been decided yet. The
council will probably vote it through but you never know.
#Post#: 93594--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: poorfour
Date: July 29, 2022, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> Some additional reading - a thread by the York RI ladies rugby
team:
HTML https://twitter.com/YorkRILadies/status/1552652218288857093
>
--- End Quote ---
That’s an excellent thread and well worth a read, with several
well-made points.
One is about what’s involved in transition. You see repeated
comments about anyone being able to call themselves whatever
gender they want, or conflating being in drag with being trans.
The thread makes it clear (once again) that a trans woman will
have to have been in medical transition for several years and
have testosterone levels below the level for cis women.
(FWIW, we have a trans boy at our club. He’s too young to begin
medical transition, so in the eyes of the RFU he’s still female.
He trains with the girls but isn’t comfortable playing
competitive matches for a girls team.)
The second is about the range of shapes and sizes. My elder
daughter at 14 is bigger than most international women players
and only a shade shorter and lighter than her 17 year old
brother (himself one of the most physically imposing players in
his squads). She’s non trans but it’s unlikely that a trans
athlete would be materially bigger or more powerful. And yet
there’s no issue with her playing with girls half a foot shorter
and two thirds her weight.
I agree with the thread that the real dangers lie more in
mismatched levels of training and experience as long as trans
players aren’t wildly outside the normal female range.
I think there’s a complex web of fears - some rooted in possible
reality, and some not - that lie behind policies that exclude
trans athletes. The only way out of it lies in education and
evidence - but the evidence is pretty thin and a blanket
prohibition doesn’t seem the way to solve it.
I do wonder if the RFU is motivated more by the threat of legal
challenge than anything else. I suspect it’s easier to a defend
a blanket ban on the basis “it’s not safe until we can prove it
is” than a case-by-case approach that could be challenged based
on differences in assessing individuals.
#Post#: 93599--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: D-Quins
Date: July 29, 2022, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the RFU is in a very difficult situation. Rugby is a
contact sport where there are already some concerns about long
term issues for the players. The reason why boy and girls are
separated at 13 in Rugby is that in general is when
physiological changes for both sex occur. Lets take running
until that age they tend to be reasonably equal in speed.
However with young women the hips will widen changing the gate,
young men the hips stay narrow and much more muscle mass is put
on. Additionally the Skelton grows some times rather unevenly
(hence teens can be clumsy) and bones become denser. In running
terms young men become on average much quicker. Some of these
changes would remain even if the young man later transitions to
a woman. That greater speed in rugby would translate to greater
force on impact.
Even in sports where there is no contact you have to consider
fairness for all the competitors. Those of my age will remember
the DDR (old East Germany) dominating the swimming pool in the
ladies events. Their swimmers we now know had for years been
part of a state sponsored program that took you girls from 12-13
years old and pumped them full of hormones. This lead to
horrific long term health issues for most of those given the
"Vitamin injections". Most did not understand what was going
on. They were very fast in the pool however and beat the drug
testers by coming off the drugs so there was trace left in their
systems in time for competitions. The "benefits" of the drugs
however remained.
We have to ensure that there is fairness in sport, it will not
help the trans community if they dominate woman's sport and it
will not help the health of women if they see no point in taking
part in sport.
I have nothing against trans people, my post person was a man
and transitioned to a woman. She was the nicest person you will
ever meet and a dam good post person. We were lucky to get our
post on time each day and with a smile no matter the weather.
Whatever the outcome in different sport lets hope it is done
with the best scientific reasoning and where competition can be
shown to be both fair and safe that it takes place.
D-Quins
#Post#: 93600--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: DOK
Date: July 29, 2022, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see the vote has gone through. Recommendation accepted.
#Post#: 93601--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: July 29, 2022, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DOK link ---
>
> I see the vote has gone through. Recommendation accepted.
>
--- End Quote ---
As expected but it was quite close.
#Post#: 93602--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: Account_109
Date: July 29, 2022, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Now that the decision's been taken, can I recommend that this
thread be locked? Personally, I'm not convinced that the
discussion itself surrounding the issue helps either women or
trans women, and likely just serves to increase polarisation and
tensions around the subject. Anyway, as others have stated, I
think most people are quite entrenched in their positions, and
are unlikely to change their minds at this point.
#Post#: 93603--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: July 29, 2022, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Account_109 link ---
>
> Now that the decision's been taken, can I recommend that this
thread be locked?
> ...
>
--- End Quote ---
Of course you can and I'm sure DOK will close it, if necessary.
#Post#: 93606--------------------------------------------------
Re: RFU Recommend Ban on TG Women
DIR By: Admin
Date: July 29, 2022, 2:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DOK won't do anything, he hasn't got the relevant permissions. I
am the person who shuts/moves threads. It may seem an
artificial division, but DOK wants to be just another poster and
not treated any different.
Can I congratulate you all on a thread that I was convinced
would need to be shut/moved pretty quickly. Instead we had a
very interesting discussion with good arguments from both sides.
As such I'll leave this thread for the moment and see how it
goes.
*****************************************************
Page 10 of 12
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page