You’ve got the wrong end of the stick. Read my post again and see to what it is referring.
This is definitely a concern but what can be done about it? If the most extreme far-right of far-right extremists says "remember to drink plenty of water in this hot weather" then what am I supposed to do? Refuse to drink water?
It's a terrible point to make.
It would be a lot easier to have this debate if people stopped pretending that they don't know exactly why these rules are being brought in.
Everybody knows exactly why most sports, especially contact sports, already have a separate category for women to compete in and everybody knows exactly why people who were born male and grew up male should not be allowed to compete with biological women.
"It's called Womens Rugby and this individual was born male but identifies as a woman now so why can't they play?"
That's ridiculous. We are mammals, primates, homo sapiens and one of the characteristics of our species is that we are sexually dimorphic. It is because of this dimorphism that a women's category was created in so many sports. Nothing to do with the naming conventions or social characteristics of the genders. So why are are pretending that just because someone identifies as a woman that the specific reasons why sports are segregated just cease to exist?
Do people really think that women's Rugby was created for social reasons alone and that it has nothing to do with the obvious dimorphic nature of our species?
So by your own admission, you have no idea of this persons lived experience. You call them a friend yet know seemingly nothing about them. You are clearly demonstrating that you have no understanding of the process or experiences of people coming out. Though you most certainly feel in a position to judge them.
You are not however commenting from a position of ignorance?
That ladies and gentlemen is what we call Double Think.
The look at the other people who in favour of this ban point.
It's just low level bullying really.
The IRFU are a sporting body, they set the rules for that sport. Just how exactly is that ideology especially as the decision has been made off the back of scientific evidence?
Key post. The complications brought about by laws created to promote an ideology rather than simply making peoples lives as manageable as possible become evident very quickly.
The GRA allows you to get a new birth cert with the sex you chose.
I doubt if it will apply. There will still be an at birth record the IRFU can refer to. They are looking at biology and safety, not personal choice.
I listened to a few spokes-people from the various transgender advocacy groups etc.
The impression I got they were not sincere in their opposition to the IRFU ruling.
To me it seemed that they are just saying what their advocacy groups would expect them to say.
As I believe if they showed any common sense reasoning on the issues at hand, it would mean a backlash from their own community.
So instead it is used as a broader clarion call by the groups as a whole where ‘human rights’ is mentioned.
This is done whether they sincerely believe it is a human rights issue or not IMO. No mention of fairness or safety concerns.
I noticed another poster said the transgender rugby issue should be decided on a ‘case by case’ basis. But where would the line be? Rugby is a hard contact sport it is not snooker, or even soccer.
Where would the line be on unfair competitive advantage v natural exceptional physical attributes of those of the same gender/age group?
If Rugby was decided on a ‘case by case basis’ it would open a can worms as it would set a precedent for all sports/all genders/all ages.
For example Ross Barkley Soccer player (in green) playing in an u13 soccer match
What is a nonsense point?
The reality is that the old rules discriminated against women.
That's not transphobic nor is it bigotry.
It was just a guess that a reduction in testosterone for a year which was still twice the female level, used to be 4 times, would equalise the difference. It also has to be said that there was enough information available before this re was brought in that this guess wasn't a very good one.
I can't play u12 girls rugby becaise I'm a 45 year old man and would have a distinct advantage over 12 year old girls.
This rule bans trans women that have went through puberty as a male prior to transition because of the scientifically proven advantage they have over other athletes. That's not discrimination just because you don't like it.
Yeah that's a nonsense point.
On the case by case rule what were the guiding rules for it? I can't seem to find any details on it.
Just beware the previous rules were for a kevel of 5nmol/l of testosterone for a year. That's still twice the level of a biological female and there's never been anything to back up why people think this would equalise the performance stats. It was literally a guess.
They make **** bedfellows, but you can't control other people and its not generally a good way of deciding an argument. Also, let us not pretend this is in any way a fringe view - restricting transwomen in women's sports is generally quite well supported (easily a majority in most cases).
Case-by-case has many of its own issues. On what parameters do you base it, how frequently do you test it, what happens if someone "becomes" too strong from training? Forced to dial it back a bit to hit certain markers? Its also, bizarrely, much more open to individual discrimination action.
How would a case by case actually work? There has to be some guidelines, otherwise there would definitely be discrimination cases brought to court. And if you agree that there are guidelines then you are really just arguing where the line in the sand is drawn. Athletics had a line in the sand policy but that is now under review.
There isn't an easy answer here. I don't want to see people banned but on the other hand you clearly need some rules on this. And no matter where you put those you are going to disciminate against some people.
Obviously nobody is going to change their minds on this, but for those supporting this outright ban instead of the more sensible case-by-case basis, I'd look at the type of person who's cheering on this ban alongside you and ask myself if they are credible people and if they make good bedfellows.
I understand the safety element, but it's completely hypocritical when there are dangerous bastards playing the game every week and they're going out of their way to do so. It's completely hypocritical to ban these women who haven't even done anything to anyone, and allow clowns above infiltrate the game.
There are disciplinary protocols for dealing with dangerous play though. They are obviously not 100% effective (or even close to it at a lower level) but I don't really see where the hypocrisy is supposedly coming from.
You could certainly argue that this simply wasn't an issue that should have been in any way prioritised, and given the numbers involved it doesn't seem that much of an issue at least yet. But I suspect their hand was somewhat forced on that front.
Well yes, but not because someone doesnt like them.
Its about the risks, allowing transgender men to play does not pose a risk to all other players. The men themselves can make an informed decision on the risks to themselves and decide to play. If you allow transgender women then the risk is to the other players. All other players cannot make an informed decision to play.
Right so it IS about excluding transwomen then
Isnt that the point in a way though. These two women are a precedent and nobody can point to any injuries/safety incidents posed by these two women.
So basically it's not discriminating against trans men but is discriminating against trans women.
The right to fairness is being overlooked here imo.
I'm sure everyone's played at some stage against a team who had a player who shouldn't be playing for them. That player mightnt scored 10 tries but they did make a difference.
The transition process doesn't remove the male advantage so while it's not an easy decision it is the right one.
Because these players that we all know are acting the assholes against guys who are of the same biological make up.
I worked in a bank and an American guy , now a woman used to frequent the branch. He was about 6 five and bult like a tank. A work colleague of mine played rugby no 10 for munster and Irish sevens. She was about 5 foot 2 and about 52kg.
How in the name of God is it acceptable to have that guy / girl playing against women.
This is precisely why nz operate weight grade rather than age grade in underage rugby. Safety for the smaller player.
The right to safety and fairness for the majority should always trump the right to inclusivity for the minority, in cases where these rights directly clash.
There's no winners in this, but it's necessary.
In NZ rugby they segregate the larger kids from the smaller ones at underage levels, specifically because Polynesian kids develop much quicker and generally bigger than Caucasian kids. They do this in the name of safety and fairness.
Insurance rules the world these days and you can be quite sure this decision at world Rugby level was based on exposure to liability. World Rugby have a duty to the game not too expose it to possible liability.
@M three , @Capra , @Marcus Antonius , @Roxxers do not post in this thread again.
Loathe to get into another argument with you, Faugheen, but here goes…
I think part of the reason for the ruling is that, down to the physiology, the players in question could be playing completely legally and it still could be dangerous for the opposition; they wouldn’t necessarily need to be playing recklessly.
(And no one is going to argue that a reckless player shouldn’t get ban for reckless play. It’s not mutually exclusive).
It’s a complex issue, where you have conflicting rights; the rights of trans woman to identify and play into a group vs the rights to safety and fairness.
I’d like to read more about it, but it seems to me there’s no perfect solution, and I can see why the IRFU erred on the side of safety.
The decision was not made in Ireland and would never be we just fallowing. At least world rugby had the balls to make the decision.
So we should be content to allow a circumstance where a 6'5 19 stone male born winger running at 25kmph crashes into a 9 or 10 stone female back in the fairness of aome sort of self entitled equality. It would be worse than getting hit by someone on an electric scooter.
load of woke junk we are killing our planet and people are more caught in this woke tripe , wake up
I've played at adult level and I'm not sure what you mean by these men. Do you mean dirty players?
Also, not related to your post, why does the female category exist in sport?
Why are women now called "Cisgender women". I think I would have opted out of the poll at that point.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6cf5dc758823be7b2ebdb601ec3d15b8.svg)
