Biological males in women's sport

keano_afc

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/14/rfu-clears-trans-women-to-play-womens-rugby-at-all-levels-in-england

Well that’s bloody disappointing!

“However, the RFU’s view, which is understood to be supported by several other countries, is that more work is needed to assess whether there are safe ways to allow trans women to keep playing the sport they love.“

But in the mean time, despite the fact that World Rugby believe it’s unsafe, f**k women players and their right to safety and fairness.

I hope the IRFU can stand up to this rewriting of biology and stand up for the thousands of women and girls who love their sport and want to be able to continue to play safely.

I think we both know that the IRFU will do exactly the same. We have self-id here, as opposed to the UK. The IRFU might be leaving themselves open to litigation if they try safeguard women's rugby.

ProfessorPlum

keano_afc wrote: »

I think we both know that the IRFU will do exactly the same. We have self-id here, as opposed to the UK. The IRFU might be leaving themselves open to litigation if they try safeguard women's rugby.

I hope you’re wrong, but the lack of a sports exemption in the GRA leaves sports bodies in a difficult position.

On the back of WR guidelines the IRFU should be able to cite the safety reasons.
They’re damned if they do (enraged TRA pile on) and damned if they don’t (the inevitable injuries that they’ll be defending)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

keano_afc wrote: »

I think we both know that the IRFU will do exactly the same. We have self-id here, as opposed to the UK. The IRFU might be leaving themselves open to litigation if they try safeguard women's rugby.

Yup, that’s the problem. They have to allow declared women to play with women.

Gruffalux

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

. They should have kept the exemption for sport.

There can be no exemption because it contravenes the ideology that ttanswomen are women or transmen are men.
One way might be to divide sport between categories of people who have undergone female puberty and those who have undergone male puberty or part thereof.

ProfessorPlum

Gruffalux wrote: »

There can be no exemption because it contravenes the ideology that ttanswomen are women or transmen are men.
One way might be to divide sport between categories of people who have undergone female puberty and those who have undergone male puberty or part thereof.

They would argue that trans women are women and as women they went through a female puberty - loaded and all as it was with testosterone.

I think just stick to actually biology. Women’s sports are for women. Trans women are trans women. Equally valid humans, but not the same as biological women.

mr_fegelien

Am I right in saying that if a 'transwoman' is chemically castrated/transitions before puberty then the difference between them and a biological woman is negligible?

An endocrinologist on Joe Rogan was saying the reason why transwomen are still stronger than biological women after transitioning is because the vast majority of them due it in their teens/20s where testosterone has already caused irreversible changes to bone density/muscle mass. If however they transition before secondary sex characteristics develop. then they will be as weak as a woman.

ceadaoin.

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if a 'transwoman' is chemically castrated/transitions before puberty then the difference between them and a biological woman is negligible?

An endocrinologist on Joe Rogan was saying the reason why transwomen are still stronger than biological women after transitioning is because the vast majority of them due it in their teens/20s where testosterone has already caused irreversible changes to bone density/muscle mass. If however they transition before secondary sex characteristics develop. then they will be as weak as a woman.

They would probably be as weak as a child if they never go through puberty and would be highly unlikely to have the potential to be competitive in sports anyway.

Oh and also, children should not be "castrated" and allowed to make the choice to permanently alter their bodies. Most would argue that is highly unethical and there is already major pushback happening against those who advocate for it. Pushing children into transitioning is not the solution to the problem of males competing in womens sports.

volchitsa

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if a 'transwoman' is chemically castrated/transitions before puberty then the difference between them and a biological woman is negligible?

An endocrinologist on Joe Rogan was saying the reason why transwomen are still stronger than biological women after transitioning is because the vast majority of them due it in their teens/20s where testosterone has already caused irreversible changes to bone density/muscle mass. If however they transition before secondary sex characteristics develop. then they will be as weak as a woman.

At best they will be somewhere in between the male strength they would have had and the strength they'd have had if they'd been born a girl. Even before birth some bones are bigger and heavier in boys than in girls, and the difference increases during the first year of life. It doesn't just begin at puberty.

Oh and that's ignoring the ethical issues with doing something so drastic to a prepubertal child, as that has already been pointed out.

Richard Hillman

The RFU are playing a dangerous game. They know if they say no to this and go with world rugby, there will be a pile-on with the sponsors. So they are taking the chance that there won't be any male competitors and is there was, there wouldn't be any serious injury to be sued for.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if a 'transwoman' is chemically castrated/transitions before puberty then the difference between them and a biological woman is negligible?

An endocrinologist on Joe Rogan was saying the reason why transwomen are still stronger than biological women after transitioning is because the vast majority of them due it in their teens/20s where testosterone has already caused irreversible changes to bone density/muscle mass. If however they transition before secondary sex characteristics develop. then they will be as weak as a woman.

But that involves giving puberty blockers to children. Forgive me if I’m not jumping for joy at the thought of that.

ingalway

Spot the difference:
https://twitter.com/SHFan1985/status/1318355086922403841?s=19

Gruffalux

ingalway wrote: »

Spot the difference:
https://twitter.com/SHFan1985/status/1318355086922403841?s=19

The skeletal differences are huge in themselves. For the same reason we can push babies out from our pelvis, we also should not carry super heavy weights as the female is more prone to prolapse of organs due to less support and enclosure of pelvic girdle. And that iliac crest - most women know what it feels like if you lift too much - it can feel like it opens and boy is it sore. All of this alone also totally changes how we move and how we CAN move, more to the point.

mohawk

keano_afc wrote: »

I think we both know that the IRFU will do exactly the same. We have self-id here, as opposed to the UK. The IRFU might be leaving themselves open to litigation if they try safeguard women's rugby.

IRFU could be between rock and a hard place here. One one hand the science is clear that there is an increased injury risk so they have risk of litigation and on the other we have Self-ID and so they are at risk of litigation.

ProfessorPlum

https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/1323999693798580226?s=21

Link to a podcast by Ross Tucker (World Rugby) taking about the process and evidence that WR looked at and how they arrived at their conclusions.
Really worth listening to if the evidence is something that interests you.

ProfessorPlum

This is an interesting read.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-i-know-a-misogynistic-sports-policy-when-i-see-it/wcm/38fd9bb9-33dc-4d56-a042-e883cd5c032f/amp/


I had come across the cited CCES guidelines recently and they truely are bonkers.
The policy is driven by a human rights group, rather than a sporting/medical body, and it seems that nobody on the panel has any expertise in the physiological issues that surely must be front and centre when assessing safety and fairness.

https://cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/cces-transinclusionpolicyguidance-e.pdf


This is the policy that Rugby Canada have chosen to follow over World Rugby guidelines.

No reduction in testosterone needed. No ‘commitment’ to the new gender identity (you can request a change mid season, as often as you like’.

In a game where the forces put through a scrum are so dangerous wrt neck injury, that younger players are not allowed to contest a scrum, and where only players who are ‘specialist’ are allowed in the scrum, they see nothing wrong in putting a fully intact, testosterone laced male bodied player in there with women

Wibbs

Sadly I think it'll take a tragedy happening in something like a scrum before they get jolted out of this utter insanity. They've jumped too deep into the rabbit hole now so are going for broke.

Gruffalux

Wibbs wrote: »

Sadly I think it'll take a tragedy happening in something like a scrum before they get jolted out of this utter insanity. They've jumped too deep into the rabbit hole now so are going for broke.

Exactly what I was going to say. But I even wonder if deaths or paralysis might be tolerated as acceptable collateral damage. Anyway let it all unfold. It is best it surfaces and displays itself. I do wish we had satirists like Jonathan Swift these days.

mynamejeff

I ve played rugby for many years at a relatively high level and have played front row as well as in the backs.
I ve seen many serious injuries up to and including my own broken bones, and have on occasion been in serious danger playing against bigger stronger and more experienced players in the front row.
In general people aren't trying to hurt each other but there is risk involved,
I also know a few lads who ended up with life altering injuries to head and neck. Most clubs will have a few people associated with the club that are in the same position
The club I am associated with have a AIL females section and of course I ve watched a few games in support of my club mates and play summer tag etc with them. Even helped out with a few training sessions

The idea that you can mix male and female contact sports beyond the age of 10 or so is simply far too dangerous.

Scrummaging is something that will eventually be phased out of rugby union as it becomes more like league. However as it is a biological male scrummaging against a biological female is unfair to both and horrendously dangerous.

If it is allowed the inevitable damage that will be done will result in many people wanting nothing to do with the whole thing .

kildare lad

mynamejeff wrote: »

I ve played rugby for many years at a relatively high level and have played front row as well as in the backs.
I ve seen many serious injuries up to and including my own broken bones, and have on occasion been in serious danger playing against bigger stronger and more experienced players in the front row.
In general people aren't trying to hurt each other but there is risk involved,
I also know a few lads who ended up with life altering injuries to head and neck. Most clubs will have a few people associated with the club that are in the same position
The club I am associated with have a AIL females section and of course I ve watched a few games in support of my club mates and play summer tag etc with them. Even helped out with a few training sessions

The idea that you can mix male and female contact sports beyond the age of 10 or so is simply far too dangerous.

Scrummaging is something that will eventually be phased out of rugby union as it becomes more like league. However as it is a biological male scrummaging against a biological female is unfair to both and horrendously dangerous.

If it is allowed the inevitable damage that will be done will result in many people wanting nothing to do with the whole thing .

I played rugby myself when I was younger and if any half decent big guy who was fit and strong, decided to transition to female, he'd look like jonah lomu playing against women . Like when does it stop ??? Say I'm 30 can I identify as a 12 year old and play minis rugby . If you can change your gender why can't you change your age ?

volchitsa

Gruffalux wrote: »

Exactly what I was going to say. But I even wonder if deaths or paralysis might be tolerated as acceptable collateral damage. Anyway let it all unfold. It is best it surfaces and displays itself. I do wish we had satirists like Jonathan Swift these days.

Of course it will. A deeply disturbed young man who wants to murder women (and only women) was imprisoned in a women's prison purely on his say so, and people defended that. Only a minority it seems. What's a broken neck compared to rape and murder - rugby's a dangerous sport, they'll say.

Gervais08

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course it will. A deeply disturbed young man who wants to murder women (and only women) was imprisoned in a women's prison purely on his say so, and people defended that. Only a minority it seems. What's a broken neck compared to rape and murder - rugby's a dangerous sport, they'll say.

Women can be sacrificed on the altar of advancing men’s rights. Twisted.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Sadly I think it'll take a tragedy happening in something like a scrum before they get jolted out of this utter insanity. They've jumped too deep into the rabbit hole now so are going for broke.

And that pisses me off. Why can we not use what we know about physiology (which is plenty) to adjudicate risk? When things going awry might mean a life-changing injury, erring on the side of caution is the sensible thing to do.

Gervais08

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And that pisses me off. Why can we not use what we know about physiology (which is plenty) to adjudicate risk? When things going awry might mean a life-changing injury, erring on the side of caution is the sensible thing to do.

I’ve an ex who trains surgical fellows and when discussing bone density or similar was asked “how do you address the trans issue? This seems a little exclusive.”

He took them to the anatomy refrigerator and showed a male cadaver and a female and went “they’re your only options guys”!!

Stark

I feel like rugby is a sport that needs weight classes tbh. Biological male myself and I played for a little bit and loved it but didn't play for too long because it wasn't worth the risk. I'm 170cm and 70kg and was going into tackles against guys 180cm+ and 100kg+. If it was something like boxing or MMA, that wouldn't be allowed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

I feel like rugby is a sport that needs weight classes tbh. Biological male myself and I played for a little bit and loved it but didn't play for too long because it wasn't worth the risk. I'm 170cm and 70kg and was going into tackles against guys 180cm+ and 100kg+. If it was something like boxing or MMA, that wouldn't be allowed.

It probably does but a man and a woman who weigh the same will still have very different musculature and bone structure. Even something like grip strength, a man will strongly outperform a woman most of the time.

ingalway

McKinnon, not content with robbing women in cycling, now wants to use their considerable strength in women's rugby.
McKinnon wants to be a woman but actually hates women and has no respect for them whatsoever.
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1325718966682128385?s=19

Gervais08

ingalway wrote: »

McKinnon, not content with robbing women in cycling, now wants to use their considerable strength in women's rugby.
McKinnon wants to be a woman but actually hates women and has no respect for them whatsoever.
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1325718966682128385?s=19

He is a vile excuse for a human being and has clearly a deep desire to hurt women.

ceadaoin.

Gervais08 wrote: »

He is a vile excuse for a human being and has clearly a deep desire to hurt women.

Could it be any more obvious that McKinnon is just another Jonathan Yaniv type. Misogynists who've found a new way to stick it to us women.

Gervais08

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Could it be any more obvious that McKinnon is just another Jonathan Yaniv type. Misogynists who've found a new way to stick it to us women.

Not without a sign in neon yellow, nope.

Wibbs

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Could it be any more obvious that McKinnon is just another Jonathan Yaniv type. Misogynists who've found a new way to stick it to us women.

TBH I think even the Misogynists label is too easy for this type, while there is something to that, it seems to be more about deluded jealousy and with an ironic mix of male ego gone rampant and I think they're just well... mental cases. And again by comparison the number of F-M trans who come to public attention, particularly in such an insane way is pretty much nonexistent.