Important policies
The BBC leans heavily on one side of the scale again.
LGBT rights campaigners have criticised World Rugby’s decision to prevent transgender women from competing at the highest levels of the women’s game.
Some have, and others have praised it.
LGBT charity Stonewall says it is “deeply disappointed” with the decision.
“The proposals were based on hypothetical data modelling that has little relevance to the questions of fairness and safety in rugby that the policy review sought to address,” said Stonewall chief executive Nancy Kelley.
Don’t be schewpid. Men are bigger and stronger than women, so letting them play on women’s teams is not fair as well as not safe. Parents don’t call for evidence before telling Joe age 14 to stop beating up Jane age 14; they know it’s not fair.
“Important policies like this should be based on robust, relevant evidence and work closely with trans people playing in the sport.”
What about the importance to women? Eh? What about that? Why are we always supposed to put men who say they are women first and women nowhere?
Transgender men remain permitted to play men’s contact rugby union, but the sport’s governing body says a review of its existing guidelines had concluded that “safety and fairness cannot presently be assured for women competing against trans women in contact rugby”.
And why is that? Because of human sexual dimorphism. Everybody knows that, but we’re supposed to ignore it or even lie it out of existence now.
I feel sorry for the women whose places in sport these delusional men have taken.
I feel sorry for the women who have to play against them, for being in danger of serious injury.
I feel sorry for the women who have these bullies on their teams, because when the records are re-written they will become losers through no fault of their own when, had they been allowed to play with the women who should have got the place, they may well have won fair and square.
World Rugby’s position is based on the chance to cause injury in a tackle. How is that not relevant to the questions of safety in rugby? It is well established that humans are sexually dimorphic, with males being the larger sex. Musculature tracks with size, and so the male sex is also stronger, faster, and heavier – all of which are closely linked to the question of safety.
Why is there no mention of working closely with women? And how can you really work with people that have been preselected to have a certain position on the matter and refuse to compromise? The science is in, personal perspectives are not data.
Well, it isn’t relevant to trans safety, is it? The data don’t show any risk to trans, and since they are the only ones that matter, then it is irrelevant.
But the trans don’t have male bodies! They never had male bodies! Because they are women, damn it. Their body may be structured in the way we assume a male body is structured, but how dare you assume that body is male in any way? That’s just transphobia!
Honestly, Holms, do you need to be sent to reeducation camp?
(Hope you recognize I’m sarcastic).
I was just watching a game of professional women’s rugby this afternoon. It was very good: skillful, fast and, yes, brutal at times. Some of those women were very big (for women) and they weren’t holding back on putting in the big hits.
It was still pretty obvious, though, that if you put a fit man, who had trained to the level those women had, on the pitch, then there would have been a serious injury – and not to the man. Good grief, I’ve watched enough rugby over the past 25 years to have seen some pretty horrific man-on-man injuries. Man-on-woman doesn’t bear thinking about.
“Important policies like this should be based on robust, relevant evidence and work closely with trans people playing in the sport.”
Well, if they want a bit of a ‘robust, relevant evidence’, they should line up a few international prop forwards: Barry Llewellyn, Alan Jones, Kyle Sinckler, Andrew Sheridan, Joe Marler, just to pick a few names from Welsh & English teams. These people actually exist, they are not metaphysical or ideological assumptions.
“Important policies like this should be based on robust, relevant evidence and work closely with trans people playing in the sport.”
Yes, just like having the industry industry making policy at the EPA…
The trans athletes will be able to speak from personal experience that they feel weaker with less testosterone and do not feel like they could seriously hurt anyone and then bring up last Saturday during practice when they were tackled by Emma, the smallest girl on the team and omg they fell right over and it hurt. Statistics and tests don’t outweigh listening to the voices and stories of those who have so much to say, so much to lose, and who are so marginalized and scorned as a matter of course. Let them speak!
:O
I wonder what those guys make!
Bloody phones… I’m sure they make coal-powered cottages or something.
I’ve mentioned Miranda Yardley’s new sport of playing rugby, with the men of course, before. Here’s an article by another man who calls himself ‘trans’ who agrees with the position World Rugby are taking.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stonewall-are-wrong-to-oppose-rugby-s-trans-women-ban