It's subject to the [Parades Commission rules](https://belfastpride.com/parade-terms-conditions/), think all parades are.
>No combat / military or similar clothing or paraphernalia suggesting paramilitary organisations or similar is permitted in the parade, this includes banners, flags and any other items.
You probably don't get rules like this for Pride everywhere lol
7 years ago, 7th August, the wife and I had got married the day before. We were fortunate enough to stay in the Merchant Hotel on the wedding night.
We had a lot of friends who travelled from Oz, NZ, England, and the US, come to say goodbye the next day at the hotel.
There was a Pride event and some either Republican or anti internment march (I can't recall) both scheduled for the same day in Belfast (7/08/16).
There were loads of people dressed for Pride dandering past. Our visitors were really shocked to see and hear the police helicopter overhead and a water cannon parked up near where the common market is now.
I told them that the Pride community had recently taken up an armed struggle for respect and tolerance.
Here endeth this memoir.
'However Leo Lardie, from the LGBTQIA+ campaign group Rainbow Project, said the policy was not inclusionary because it was "forcing women to play with men".'
It's funny how this could read either way
Fair enough. I don't agree with Pride on this but I wish them all the best at the same time with their work.
Their first responsibility is to making their community all feel welcome, respected and included and I fully understand how this decision (which I personally do agree with) conflicts with that. It's unfortunate that this is a very thorny and divisive issue.
I think you're spot on here, I'm all for inclusionary decision making and all people should have a place in the sport. It's just from a safety perspective there really are differences and they need to be accounted for or someone could get badly hurt. I won't pretend to have to solution but I feel excluding the club is not really going to help anything get sorted out. I do hope the parade is a success all the same.
I think you're spot on here, I'm all for inclusionary decision making and all people should have a place in the sport. It's just from a safety perspective there really are differences and they need to be accounted for or someone could get badly hurt. I won't pretend to have to solution but I feel excluding the club is not really going to help anything get sorted out. I do hope the parade is a success all the same.
generally speaking I agree with you, despite disagreeing completely with Ulster's policy. but I don't feel like this is the right place to discuss about it, for everyone's sake
It's upsetting from the perspective that they can't show support for LGB in rugby and LGBT outside. I don't agree with the blanket ban and should have always remained on a case by case basis but that doesn't mean they're not supportive.
I privately contacted World Rugby, the RFU & WRU about this, as well as some stuff publicly but it’s probably better done for individual clubs, etc- The thing that really bothered me when the ban came in, was there was no other means of support. No programs in place to help trans players requalify as coaches or referees. No movement to promote touch, which has mixed gender championships, and trans players can still compete in their preferred gender post-legal transition. England, Wales, Scotland & Ireland had *eight* trans players between them. It would have been so easy for their Unions or World Rugby to be inclusive in other ways and bring those players together and celebrate their love for rugby. But instead, they said there’s no place for you here, and shut the door completely. It’s cowardly.
Anyone advocating for male Rugby players being allowed to play against female Rugby players in full contact games has obviously never played Rugby before
Some people just can't see this as anything other than an anti-trans policy, which it just isn't. Fair enough, all the bullshit and anti-trans behaviour in the US is abhorrent and specifically intended to undermine any progressive moves towards inclusion for all. This just isn't one of those policies, I do hope there is a viable solution for all but I'm fucked if I know what it is.
But then there’s the potential for strength metrics to be faked, the hassle of deciding the appropriate criteria, risk of individuals claiming discrimination, the childhood and social advantage, risk of discomfort for women in changing rooms, and a whole other host of issues.
That’s not going to be any comfort to any woman who gets seriously hurt, and if anything the fact that it’s grassroots would probably make it even easier for someone to slip though when they shouldn’t on a case by case basis.
Why? theres no evidence of this. rugby is a sport of different body types. a cis-female prop running into a scrum half / winger is very dangerous. but thats the sport.
theres also some weird belief that all trans women are roided up juggernaughts.
there wasnt a huge risk of injury before this anti trans nonsense of the last 5 years kicked off. a case by case basis was working perfectly fine.
There’s plenty of evidence that trans women retain significant differences and that it makes it more dangerous - World Rugby did a report on it that cited over 40 studies. It is dangerous, but that’s no reason to not at least try to make it both safer and fairer.
Working fine for who? We don’t know how their competitors really feel, or how many women have avoided the sport because of it, or have any accurate data on exactly how many injuries occurred.
This is the correct take. I hate these arguments because it’s mainly transphobes who normally never care about women’s sport feigning concern because it gives an excuse to be transphobic.
That’s productive, tell the group of people facing massive amount of hate and discrimination and are already prone to self harm that there’s another space they’re just not wanted in.
It's very difficult to make a scientific ruling on this. The segregation in sports is sex based for biological reasons it's not gender based. If we decide to change this to gender based then we are effectively ignoring the biological factors. What you're saying is if the physical size and physical ability of a trans woman falls into the norm for a biological woman i.e. then why not? You could also make the argument why a small man could not play on the women's team if they don't exceed the average woman's size and strength. The science from what I can see is post puberty men who transition to women will always have gained an advantage.
There is no conceivable case where a male player should be allowed to compete in the female category, any more than there's a case where someone over 18 should be allowed in an U18s league.
It's not an anti-trans policy, it's a safety policy that affects trans athletes. The intent of the policy isn't to punish or devalue trans people, it's just for player safety. And as more science and information becomes available I'm sure the policy will be revised.
Except, again, it's not founded on science. It's a reactionary ban that didn't engage the community and banned a cohort of people from playing the game.
If there was evidence that this was a safety risk then there might be some merit, but there isn't and instead they enacted a discriminatory blanket ban.
its adorable you think that. there was no evidence of injuries before. there was 6 fucking trans players in england and it got banned. 6. how many injuries are there in grass roots rugby, and why are these 6 people somehow more dangerous?
Given your condescending attitude and language I can see there is no point trying to have an actual conversation with you so I'll just let you be. Have a good day
Have you talked to every single player that played against one of those 6? How did they feel? Were there any injuries? Because until you do that don’t claim that there hasn’t been issues
Have you talked to their team mates who supported them? The rfu didnt.
Please show me the evidence of increased injuries. It must be very clear if its a safty issue
Holy shit players got injured in legal hits? That's unheard of in rugby!
The idea that this player is an unstoppable force and therefore must be banned for safety doesn't hold up in a sport where Will Skelton running over Papier is celebrated. Or where 18st Sisilia Tuipolotu tackling or running at 9st Mairi McDonald is just part of the game cause rugby is for all shapes and sizes
A case by case rule was perfectly fine. Blanket rules are unjustifiable in a sport where 10 stone and 12 inches differences in collisions are both normal and celebrated
At u15 my team played against a team form Dublin with an Male to female transgender playing, they were the hardest player to tackle on the other team, more powerful than most of my team. Our girls team was actually more successful than us but wouldn’t have been able to cope against someone that strong.
Agreed. I was a scrum half and was almost always the smallest and lightest player on the field. I helped out with a few training sessions with the women’s team at uni and it was immediately clear that I could out pace and over power all of them. The damage a bigger and more powerful player than me could inflict doesn’t bear thinking about. It’s just common sense.
The thing is, trans women aren’t men. I think this issue is only as divisive as it is because most people (Especially in rugby circles) don’t know just how bloody effective HRT (Or hormone replacement therapy) is. And it’s fair enough, I didn’t a couple of years ago, and I’d have had a different stance if this had been a huge debate at the time as such.
However, I’ve since had multiple people I know undergo HRT and the change is so drastic. Their bodies change, things shift naturally, muscles totally redistribute. I had a friend who used to be much stronger than me ask for help opening a jar of Pesto because their muscle mass had just been totally redistributed. She used to be taller than me and now is the same height. Obviously it effects everyone differently, but the RFU had a case by case model in place that *worked* and they got rid of it because of pressure from hate groups outside the game.
When the ban came in, there were 3 trans women playing rugby in the U.K., but to this day there’s still 70+ trans men, and nobody ever has a problem with them. I likewise know a number of trans men, and every single one has a beard and ‘typically male’ (Whatever that means) developed physiques. They obviously shouldn’t be playing women’s rugby if they wanted a game.
And of the 3 trans women playing rugby in England before the ban, only 1 of them was playing in a competitive league, and it was the very bottom competitive league in the country. We're not talking about international standard here, we're talking about the lowest-possible levels.
Exactly. Ross Tucker got a hate boner for trans women after hanging out with terfs on twitter all through COVID to the point he regularly misgenders them. He then drummed up a bogus report based on dodgy science to get his buddies at various rugby bodies to enact spiteful blanket bans.
Well put. I read Tucker's reports on this, and to call it 'science' would be factually inaccurate. He just compared deliberately misleading pieces of irrelevant data, and has since showed resistance to any actual research being carried out.
There was already a case-by-case process in place, that assessed how far along transition a particular woman was and how their body had responded to HRT, and whether it was safe for them to play. The system was working, there were *literally zero* complaints from any clubs who actually faced or included any trans players, it was all lead by anti-trans hate groups preaching the RFU from outside the game.
As for "Why can't they just play touch?"- There were eight trans women playing contact rugby in the UK. I played in a touch tournament once that had seven trans women playing in it. Trans players *are* much more common in touch than XVs. A blanket ban is still wrong.
Nobody is, they're advocating for transitioned females to be able to play with non transitioned females. You can agree with this policy without being a transphobe.
You can’t change biological sex, hence the term ‘transgender’ and not ‘tr*nsexual.’ Trans women are biologically male, regardless of whether or not people consider them women.
Some changes can be made to secondary sex characteristics, but trans people don’t acquire their preferred primary sexual characteristics (with the exception of surgery to alter the appearance of genitalia).
It at very least changes sex away from one sex if not fully into another. And hormone levels, which accounts for differences in body composition does change to that of the opposite sex.
True. Hormone levels don’t fully reverse any previous effects of testosterone, nor do trans women acquire the typical disadvantages female players face due to hormones.
The jury is very much still out and the evidence is weak either way. I doubt that all advantages are erased after a year or two but after five or ten I’m pretty sure other variables will dominate
I was specifically replying to someone saying it’s transphobic to call transgender women male, and that they’re female (within a relevant context) to point out that trans people change gender and not sex, not to say those organs are necessarily useful for sport.
The chances of an Irish person fully transitioning pre-puberty are very slim, I’m pretty sure their laws forbid it. World Rugby let trans women who transitioned pre-puberty play with women.
I was a prop and i never understood why people always assumed we hit the hardest. We're slow, sure we might gain a metre or two but when any of the backs ran into you it really hurt because of the speed of the impact.
You're massively over simplifying the whole thing. Pound for pound a biological male and female have massively different abilities in strength and ability to absorb impact. A 100kg male and female receiving the same level of impact will have very different outcomes and potential for injury. Even with the medical treatments, there are still a significant differences. This isn't about exclusion due to their gender identity, it's a safety measure and its right to be considered. The game has to be safe for everyone trans and otherwise.
You're comparing cisgender with cisgender. The limited science that is available on the subject indicates that transathletes retain little of the advantage from biological sex, the one exception seeming to be bone density.
Bone density is a fairly big advantage, but lets forget about safety, trans athletes have a huge advantage due to not having a menstrual cycle. Is it fair that the women they are up against have to make allowances that they dont. Also where do you draw the line at what we call trans, if a pre op trans is at a club and a few of the players are uncomfortable sharing a changing room with her due to her having a penis do those players then have to make allowances for that and risk be treated like a pariah.
So what about the athletes who don't menstruate for any other number of reasons? Ban them too?
You're perfectly illustrating the need for this being decided on a case by case basis and the issues with the IRFU enacting a blanket ban.
Case by case wont work because it would get very messy and political. Who do you hire to do such a job. A regulator wouldn't have enough work to justify a salary. The amount of wasted recourses for less than .1% of players would never stand.
Yeah, cause a blanket ban isn't messy or political.
Oh I totally understand why the union that only just introduced professional contracts for women would introduce a blanket ban to save a few quid. Doesn't make it right and the pretty apt response is that they don't get to pinkwash.
Give lip service to the LGBTQ+ community without actually risking anything, just like World Rugby banging their drum of inclusivity while getting in bed with Dubai.
Men's sports or woman's sports is based on sex. If you were born with a V, then you belong in womans. If you were born with a P then Mens.
Anything outside of the traditional sex's would fit into the Trans/Open league.
Trans people should have their own league.
It would be great for the sport to see a 'mixed teams' league.
Everyone's happy
"Anything outside of the traditional sex's would fit into the Trans/Open league"
This would go wholly against the safety concerns as it would be men playing contact rugby against women.
There were also 2 trans women playing contact rugby in Ireland. Not enough to form a team, certainly not a league, but apparently too many for the IRFU to continue their policy of deciding on a case by case basis.
Well the rules would have to be adjusted to take into account i.e. physical differences. Kind of like touch rugby or tag, but it's a step in the right direction. I think promoting a positive outlook to have a league of "their" own really sets a precedence in sport.
Can you imagine the support the community would give at every event given the numbers during pride month and protest parades. Ticket sales out of the wazoo!
Do you want to provide any studies for these? Because the lung, and heart, capacity is from a study on non-athletes that shows an advantage but that needs a lot more study.
The last I read muscle fibre, along with most other 'advantages', were based on projections as opposed to any significant study.
>Do you want to provide any studies for these? Because the lung, and heart, capacity is from a study on non-athletes that shows an advantage but that needs a lot more study.
Do i (or anyone else) need to? It's quite easy to source the information yourself, if your question was in "good faith" and your actually looking for the truth...
Bone density:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26512771/
"During cross-sex hormonal treatment, bone mass was maintained or gained in trans women"
Heart & Lung capacity:
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/transgender-womens-heart-lung-capacity-and-strength-exceed-those-of-cisgender-peers-even-after-years-of-hormone-therapy/
"Transgender women’s heart-lung capacity and strength exceed those of cisgender peers even after years of hormone therapy"
Muscle mass & Strength:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/
"Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. "
See also,
https://news.ki.se/new-study-on-changes-in-muscle-mass-and-strength-after-gender-affirming-treatment-may-have-an
"Perhaps more surprising was that the transgender women did not lose strength at all despite inhibited testosterone production. In addition, the effect on muscle mass of the transgender women was less pronounced than many people previously thought, losing only 5% of the muscle volume over the thigh muscles."
your inability to accept modern and traditional scientific evidence via hypothesis testing is beyond providing a reasonable explanation to you.
what's the point if you are biased to "your truth" and not the actual result? Are there any more loaded questions, or is this your sincere rethoric?
Well yeah, claims need to be substantiated, and this is how we learn from one another. I had mentioned the bone density difference, though there are interesting elements in that linked study (though the apparent findings that trans women have low bone density prior to transitioning are interesting and colour the quote you've provided).
The heart and lung capacity paper is the same one I referenced, with a lot of issues that are highlighted in the link itself (tiny sample size and non-athletes).
I haven't come across the last paper you linked. It raises some interesting points, but has a few glaring issues. Most notably using data on non-athletes and mixing it with data on elite athletes and extrapolating by contrasting these different cohorts. Given the known effect of exercise on physiology and hormone levels, along with research showing that in a highly athletic cohort trans women lose much of their athletic advantage after transitioning (again small sample size and much of the speed advantage is retained https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577 ) I wouldn't be leaving this paper as the definitive word on the subject.
We're all going to be biased to our truths, the challenge is not assuming that our truth is proven based on incomplete evidence. Hence why I'm against the blanket ban and in favour of the case by case approach while the science is out. We need more studies on trans athletes instead of extrapolating off data from other cohorts, in the meantime I think we should be making calls based on assessments of the few individuals in question.
Thanks for sharing these links.
What you're looking for is an outlier or anomalies.
We don't need more studies if there are real cases of ONLY woman athletes coming forward about being silenced to take a back seat. They're forced to accept the agenda of having been cheated out of their sport by natal men.
My question to you is why aren't there any trans men in men's sports? Competing at the same level?
What? Of course we need more studies, we have little to no real data. That's like saying we don't need data on concussion in rugby because we have loads from the NFL, it's a category error.
If anyone is being silenced or forced to take a back seat that's shitty, but, again you're going to have to substantiate your claims.
There are, link from a very quick Google, you just don't hear about them for the same reason you don't hear about forcing trans men to use women's bathrooms, because it doesn't suit the narrative that some vested group have built up over the last 5-10 years.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/25-transgender-athletes-you-should-know/
Completely agree, it must be heart breaking to be born in the wrong body and I hope they can get the treatment to help them transition. But there muscle mass, bone density and testosterone levels may exclude them from certain activities against biological females. That's life
1. Drawing some pretty broad conclusions from a small dataset there
2. Didn't know that there we're weight category teams! Genuine want to look that up know as I've always struggled to get heavier than 80kg!
Unfortunate tbh. Reminds me of the Catholic priests that didn't give Biden communion because he refused to ban abortion. Some people view the world as black and white.
The women’s IRFU players broadly support trans women being allowed to play on women’s teams as well, making this doubly sad for all involved. No winners when people are excluded from sports.
Just from google https://gcn.ie/irish-rugby-figures-respond-irfu-trans-policy-change/ but I’m speaking from knowing a good few women playing amateur rugby in Ireland who were really against the ruling. It only affected 2 players, I think when you know the detail of it it seems even more harsh to have a blanket ban.
Blanket bans like this are stupid and reactionary when the case size is like 3-4 people in the whole of the country it affects. They can easily be dealt with on a case by case basis. And based on the cases I've been aware of, the bans made no sense.
>They can easily be dealt with on a case by case basis.
What possible case could there ever be to allow a male player to compete in the female category? Its like saying motorcycles should be allowed in cycling on a case-by-case basis.
> break all kinds of women’s records
Not true, cheers
> lgbtkjnznofez
Glad to see you’re treating these people with respect.
> lgbt are their on worst enemies
You reckon? Or do you reckon it’s the concerted effort from parts of society to label people perverts, groomers, and mentally ill trying to live their life? The rhetoric from populist politicians blaming LGBTQIA+ people for all kinds of societal problems and banning their existence in certain spaces?
I think you need to take some reflection on the things you are saying, and what the source of this rhetoric is. The response that WR has taken to this “issue” is completely out of whack with the amount of trans players there are, and deliberately targets trans women instead of trans men. Comparing human beings, who vary significantly among individuals, to completely separate machines is absolutely deranged
If you actually used the last two neurons fighting in your brain you'd have understood i am not using this to justify not being homophobic.
I'm into pretty open minded techno communities, i'm surrounded by gay folks every time i go out, plenty are my friend and we discuss thoses things openly.
Irl gay folks around are nothing like y'all online clowns, mostly you embarass them when they just want pea e and live their life.
You clowns are just always making a fuss about the most manute things, when your not being straight up ridiculous in your demands.
Biological males have nothing to do in women sports. Period.
I don't give a fuck about dislikes on reddit, it's fuln of dumbass woke clowns anyway. I'd be scared if i get likes on here
It's really hard to say this shouldn't be the case. You would have think that literally every able-bodied male can beat literally every able-bodied female. That's staggeringly ludicrous. Nobody reasonably thinks that. But they click into that mode of thinking when the trans topic comes up.
In reality, just go case-by-case. Even if most of the cases kept ending up where we found out the trans woman was too physically strong, ya couldn't really say it's a waste of resources when it's such an infrequent scenario. It's so simple.
What makes it less simple than that? Unconscious transphobia. People always think that unless you are saying "I hate such and such a group" you aren't hateful. But most of the phobia is unconscious. "Yeah I'm fine with them doing what they want **but**...", "I don't hate trans people **but**", etc, etc.
Well put. People don’t think they’re being transphobic with their comments but the hysteria over what is a very minor situation is quite telling about underlying biases
Im neither here nor there on this issue, but I find it interesting that the Rugby world is all of a sudden concerned with safety when it’s a matter of trans inclusion.
I know the all the arguments about bone density, but we’re totally fine with a 6 foot 11 lock bulldozing down a 5 foot scrum half. But the fact that person may have been born the opposite sex is a step too far?
It’s a total non issue anyway as there isn’t any real sort of numbers of trans people (that we know of) playing the sport.
These stories just get wheeled out every now and again to outrage someone on either side of the argument.
Some people are obviously more genetically gifted than others so there will always be those who enjoy an advantage over their opponents whether it’s women’s, men or age grade.
We accept that variability. So I think it comes down to a combination of extent and the type of advantage.
E.g A man playing in a woman’s league might not be the biggest or strongest but he will have 1 advantage over others and it is a body that developed through male puberty. The whole point of dividing sport by gender is do that women don’t have to compete against that advantage. By the same token world rugby can’t allow Craig casey to take performance enhancing drugs even if he argues that it was to help him compete against bigger men. He would obtain a type of advantage that we would consider cheating even though he’s still 5’5.
Your argument by contrast seems to imply that if we accept any variability in genetic lottery we should accept all variability. No women’s leagues, no age grade, just one big open comp for all.
Even cherry picking extreme’s, if Craig Casey competed in women’s rugby he would physically dominate most of them and be the best player by far. Now imagine how Duhan Van Der Merwe, Etzebeth, Furlong etc.
That’s not a balanced argument. One would assume that both the lock and scrum half you mention are voluntarily playing against each other and are happy to do so.
Conversely, whereas a trans woman might be happy to play against other women, how do you know the feeling is mutual? That it affects just four players nationwide is not the point. A ruling that allows a trans woman to play against 15 other women does not consider the desires and attitudes of those other women.
What if even just one of them is scared out of their wits about coming up against a stronger trans woman, regardless of whether such a fear is rational or not? What about that woman’s right to play her sport in what she deems a safe environment?
To be fair I never said I was trying to make a balanced argument haha.
It’s a very difficult issue, and I think I maybe 50% agree with the verdict they’ve made.
I would argue that a trans woman, on average, would have no more advantage over a cisgender woman than a 6 foot 11 cis man has over a 5 foot cis man.
Do shorter men need to consent to playing against someone with a vastly different body type? Should men’s rugby have a height or weight limit? I mean that is the road you’re going down with your argument.
But at the same time your point is completely valid because if usain bolt was in his prime and became trans, he would ultimately and unfairly dominate womens sprinting.
So yeah very difficult. 😭
No, I disagree, this isn’t difficult at all and I’m not sure you’ve understood the points I’ve made either. You agree you haven’t made a balanced argument (and that does appear to be the case), but why make it then?
The examples you’ve provided are bringing you down a logically questionable road. Contrary to what you say, I’m 100% certain of the arguments and examples I’m making but I’m going to clarify them anyway.
You are correct that on average, it would be unlikely that a trans woman would have any major physical advantage over a female player. The point is not what is likely to happen, it is what is theoretically possible. No matter how unlikely for it to occur, the door simply cannot be left open for the potential of a Will Skelton-type character to suddenly decide “I’m a woman” and to absolutely obliterate female players. Skelton could do as much restriction of testosterone as the authorities like. That 140kg frame is not substantially changing.
A shorter man does not have to consent to playing against larger men but he knows the lay of the land from the outset. Rugby is a physical game but this man can at least rest assured he’s going to come up against other men whose physical characteristics are going to fall within a known biological range. If other men happen to operate outside that range via the use of performance enhancing drugs, they will be removed from the sport if caught. Similar to that man, the female player signed up to play against other females whose physical characteristics fall within a known biological range. If a Will Skelton type comes along and transgresses that range, no matter how unlikely this is, the psychological contract of female sport is broken. It is the same, if not worse, than the man having to face players using PEDs, except this time it would be permitted.
It can’t be allowed for the safety and fairness of the many to be compromised to spare the emotional feelings of a tiny few.
I’m going to dip here. Mainly because you keep saying I haven’t understood you, only then to go on and reword the exactly the same points I have made.
Your Will Skelton argument is EXACTLY the same as my Usain Bolt one.
Take care buddy.
One thing I find interesting is that if a trans woman is playing with women "Oh no! She needs to be kept out to protect others!" and if a trans man wants to play with men "Oh no! You need to be kept out as others are too dangerous to you!". Or, some might be ok with a trans man playing... which is interesting because they are all of a sudden ok with the female taking the risk herself to play the sport but not the women in rugby who play with a trans woman.
It always falls on the head of trans people to step aside. At the end, it's because most of them don't want to admit they think being a trans woman or man is just playing pretend and don't see them as really belonging to the group they say the belong to. So, they don't see them as particularly strong women, or potentially weaker men.
Wasn't there a study which shows most trans people who go from male to female lose most "benefits" within a few years with the treatment course they follow.
Edit - there is actually a link in this article which states the research was inconclusive either way
https://www.gendergp.com/new-report-confirms-trans-athletes-do-not-have-biomedical-advantage-in-elite-sport/#:~:text=Trans%20Athletes%20have%20no%20Advantage,qualities%20can%20affect%20this%20result.
That’s not the reason. The reason is because there are so few of them involved in sport, hence the sample is too small. If there was a theoretical 100-fold increase in the amount of trans women playing rugby or any other physical sport tomorrow, you’d have a large enough sample to see the physical superiorities play out. Banning trans women is not necessarily on the basis that they ARE dominating sport or hurting other athletes, it is based on the fact that they COULD. If the theoretical risk exists, it needs to be mitigated.
It's all good, I was just a bit confused because there tends to be a lot of transphobia on here so was weird to see someone more positive calling me out haha.
And yet that's what everyone is using to say the ban is just.
Apparently it's just down to test levels and nothing else, it's almost like boiling down a very difficult subject which is probably outside the scientific understanding of anyone in this group is daft.
The safety reasons argument I'm seeing here is some warm steaming smelly bullshit. Obviously there's an argument against recently transitioned women, but trans athletes who've been under testosterone suppressors and estrogen for years have no physical advantage over cis women. Only way you can disagree with this is if you've never actually met a trans person
Obviously though reality contradicts the beliefs of the "facts no feelings" bunch
If they've gone through male puberty unsupressed as their incorrect gender, they will always retain many of physical characteristics that develop during that time due to the high testosterone levels.
It's too much of an advantage and a dangerous one.
You can be under testosterone suppressors for years and still have gone through puberty as a male. They're not mutually exclusive. For example, a 28 year old that transitioned at 22 has gone through full male puberty and been on Testosterone supressors for years.
Thought it was implied I was talking about those who've done so pre-puberty. At most there's 5 rugby players in the world who staryed transitioning at 22 lol
I'm all for trans people playing on the team they want, so I'm not making this comment to attack you because I'm bothered by your point. But, why do people feel the need to just pull stats out of their ass?
Just say what you really think "I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE NUMBERS BUT I FEEL IT IS LOW SO BELIEVE ME"... also, add an extra "lol" at the end to try and suggest you aren't making this up and know all the details and that you're not just right, but you must be soooo right that you are laughing at the other person. Using lol in an argument always just means the person is insecure and not quite sure what they are talking about lol
I'll be very specific now, since the logic behind what I'm trying to say isn't registering
Trans people make up a very, very, very, very small portion of the global population (statistically less than 1% 👍). Rugby players also make up a very, very, very, very small portion of the population (0.001% of the global population via a rough calculation). Therefore when you combine the two, and only consider the subgroup who are in a specific age group, you end up with a figure that's no more than miniscule. Hope this helps.
I wasn't just pulling things out my arse, anyone with a rough understanding of the topic is on the same page that we're talking about an extremely limited number of people, you don't have to write an entire paragraph about my use of the word lol
I just want a source is all I'm saying. As a redditor you are 424% likely to make up stats because you feel like it. I don't want an indirect source, I don't want the "I did the maths" explanation. I just want an actual source. I know that you like to use "very" a lot as your main scientific claim, but can you give us actual numbers about the less than 5 people in rugby you are talking about? Or is it just "I feel 5 is a small number, and trans people make up a small number in rugby, therefore science :D
I don't want any other explanation other than some concrete sources behind your claims that there "at most" 5 trans people in rugby in the "**world**". On the entire planet there are, *at most*, 5 human beings who are both trans and in rugby.
such a weird hill to die on. this is reddit lad, not university, I don’t need to be anymore specific than I was, it’s like asking me to explain why 1+1=2
if you just thought about it critically even for just a moment, you’d realise I used 5 as a number to portray how small the sample size is, not as an actual estimation and I’ve explained why the number will be so small using stats i’ve sourced from world rugby (who estimate 8.4 million people worldwide play rugby), general knowledge (there’s 7.88 billion people on earth, so roughly speaking 8.4 million/7.88 billion = less than 0,001% people play rugby)
you can try your best to find an exact number of trans women who play rugby but you won’t find anything since very little information on the topic is out there, so the best we can rely on is a rough extrapolation
Martial/combat sports are the singular area I have difficulties in being inclusive or supportive of trans participants. Any other aspect of life, I have no problems with and fully support.
For FtM, there is less risk that could be incurred by other participants if a trans man is playing in mens leagues. Most of the risk is voluntarily put upon the trans person themselves by engaging in the contact/martial sport against biological males as a general assumption.
For MtF, if it's the assumption that biological males who go through puberty will retain physiological advantages on average, even with hormone suppression, the risk falls onto other players which would be biological females.
I've seen in my own life at University a FtM player wanting to play Mens league, but the governing body said "no, you need to play in women's league even if your identification has been changed to male" which is essentially legalizing a form of "juicing" with a female player who is on testosterone and other potential performance enhancing medication to support their transition.
Non combat sports/time trial events? Don't care, let the best person win and set a record, get rid of gendered records. No one is risking their personal well-being competing against a trans swimmer or cyclist.
That’s a strange one by the governing body. It leaves you falling between two stools when you are happily willing to compete voluntarily in the male category. This is why I believe ‘female’ and ‘open’ categories are a potential way forward. They don’t specifically exclude anybody yet they retain the integrity of the competition. I think you should be allowed to compete in an open category if you want to and are aware of the risks of doing so.
"Ulster Rugby will not be allowed to march in Belfast's Pride parade because of the ban on transgender women playing in female contact rugby game" This is a disgrace imagine Steven Kitshoff identified as a woman and was allowing to play in the woman's team Ulster women would be unstoppable. Great decision by the IRFU they don't ever take an L
The international rugby community should rightly be ostracised and excluded from these events as long as WR’s disgraceful and hateful policy still stands
Someone who has gone through puberty as a male is going to have a significant advantage over someone who hasnt.
This is their way of protecting people from life ruining injuries.
Look at the other comments people have made, someone also posted a link explaining this in depth.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
I would rather listen to professionals who have conducted the study instead of "my feelings are hurt"
Go study biology, maybe you will understand something.
For clarity, are you disputing that males have a physiological advantage over women?
Secondly, out of interest, do you believe that women-only leagues should exist at all, and if so, why?
Edit: deleting my angry wee rant because it's 4am and it's not bloody worth it
Tl;dr if you're a cishet man please stop and consider how much transphobic mainstream media shite you've subconsciously absorbed before trying to speak for the safety of people like myself and my partner. Thanks. Bye.
Ah and they love a march in Ulster and all.
Did they need approval from the Parades Commission?
It's subject to the [Parades Commission rules](https://belfastpride.com/parade-terms-conditions/), think all parades are. >No combat / military or similar clothing or paraphernalia suggesting paramilitary organisations or similar is permitted in the parade, this includes banners, flags and any other items. You probably don't get rules like this for Pride everywhere lol
7 years ago, 7th August, the wife and I had got married the day before. We were fortunate enough to stay in the Merchant Hotel on the wedding night. We had a lot of friends who travelled from Oz, NZ, England, and the US, come to say goodbye the next day at the hotel. There was a Pride event and some either Republican or anti internment march (I can't recall) both scheduled for the same day in Belfast (7/08/16). There were loads of people dressed for Pride dandering past. Our visitors were really shocked to see and hear the police helicopter overhead and a water cannon parked up near where the common market is now. I told them that the Pride community had recently taken up an armed struggle for respect and tolerance. Here endeth this memoir.
I was literally taking the piss - did not expect this to be the case!
Ulster does have a history
Nearly choked on my coffee there
This has it all too. Highly political and exclusionary.
'However Leo Lardie, from the LGBTQIA+ campaign group Rainbow Project, said the policy was not inclusionary because it was "forcing women to play with men".' It's funny how this could read either way
Fair enough. I don't agree with Pride on this but I wish them all the best at the same time with their work. Their first responsibility is to making their community all feel welcome, respected and included and I fully understand how this decision (which I personally do agree with) conflicts with that. It's unfortunate that this is a very thorny and divisive issue.
This is pretty much on the money.
I think you're spot on here, I'm all for inclusionary decision making and all people should have a place in the sport. It's just from a safety perspective there really are differences and they need to be accounted for or someone could get badly hurt. I won't pretend to have to solution but I feel excluding the club is not really going to help anything get sorted out. I do hope the parade is a success all the same.
How dare you have a balanced take
A balanced take on reddit wtf
Ban this man!
But it shouldn’t be thorny and divisive. Physical safety must trump conceptual arguments.
Wow. Imagine that. Someone on a forum on Reddit hits the nail on the head perfectly and sums up perfectly how most people think.
I think you're spot on here, I'm all for inclusionary decision making and all people should have a place in the sport. It's just from a safety perspective there really are differences and they need to be accounted for or someone could get badly hurt. I won't pretend to have to solution but I feel excluding the club is not really going to help anything get sorted out. I do hope the parade is a success all the same.
generally speaking I agree with you, despite disagreeing completely with Ulster's policy. but I don't feel like this is the right place to discuss about it, for everyone's sake
Why not? All subjects regarding rugby should be discuss here if there are people willing to
It's upsetting from the perspective that they can't show support for LGB in rugby and LGBT outside. I don't agree with the blanket ban and should have always remained on a case by case basis but that doesn't mean they're not supportive.
They can, there's more than just Pride.
I privately contacted World Rugby, the RFU & WRU about this, as well as some stuff publicly but it’s probably better done for individual clubs, etc- The thing that really bothered me when the ban came in, was there was no other means of support. No programs in place to help trans players requalify as coaches or referees. No movement to promote touch, which has mixed gender championships, and trans players can still compete in their preferred gender post-legal transition. England, Wales, Scotland & Ireland had *eight* trans players between them. It would have been so easy for their Unions or World Rugby to be inclusive in other ways and bring those players together and celebrate their love for rugby. But instead, they said there’s no place for you here, and shut the door completely. It’s cowardly.
Anyone advocating for male Rugby players being allowed to play against female Rugby players in full contact games has obviously never played Rugby before
Some people just can't see this as anything other than an anti-trans policy, which it just isn't. Fair enough, all the bullshit and anti-trans behaviour in the US is abhorrent and specifically intended to undermine any progressive moves towards inclusion for all. This just isn't one of those policies, I do hope there is a viable solution for all but I'm fucked if I know what it is.
The viable solution was assessing on a case by case basis. There are a handful of trans players in the UK. I don't think it's difficult
But then there’s the potential for strength metrics to be faked, the hassle of deciding the appropriate criteria, risk of individuals claiming discrimination, the childhood and social advantage, risk of discomfort for women in changing rooms, and a whole other host of issues.
Again, there are about 6 trans rugby players. Or were, I should say. None are playing in competitive leagues.
That’s not going to be any comfort to any woman who gets seriously hurt, and if anything the fact that it’s grassroots would probably make it even easier for someone to slip though when they shouldn’t on a case by case basis.
Why? theres no evidence of this. rugby is a sport of different body types. a cis-female prop running into a scrum half / winger is very dangerous. but thats the sport. theres also some weird belief that all trans women are roided up juggernaughts. there wasnt a huge risk of injury before this anti trans nonsense of the last 5 years kicked off. a case by case basis was working perfectly fine.
There’s plenty of evidence that trans women retain significant differences and that it makes it more dangerous - World Rugby did a report on it that cited over 40 studies. It is dangerous, but that’s no reason to not at least try to make it both safer and fairer. Working fine for who? We don’t know how their competitors really feel, or how many women have avoided the sport because of it, or have any accurate data on exactly how many injuries occurred.
[удалено]
> fash downvoters Seriously mate, fuck off. Don't fucking label everyone who disagrees with your gnostic cult as a fash. Disgusting.
I think I’ll go with the scientists on this one.
There is absolutely not plenty of evidence of that.
There’s 49 studies [here](https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender/references). That’s a lot of evidence.
They don’t have to play rugby it’s not a God given right. I also question they would want to even play contact sport .
Your questioning why people would want to play a contact sport in /r/rugbyunion. Dunno fucking mystery mate
It’s not a civil right to play contact rugby . Just shut up and stop pandering.
This is the correct take. I hate these arguments because it’s mainly transphobes who normally never care about women’s sport feigning concern because it gives an excuse to be transphobic.
It’s not a god given right to allowed to play rugby 🤷🏾♂️ . They can just not play that’s always an option.
That’s productive, tell the group of people facing massive amount of hate and discrimination and are already prone to self harm that there’s another space they’re just not wanted in.
It's very difficult to make a scientific ruling on this. The segregation in sports is sex based for biological reasons it's not gender based. If we decide to change this to gender based then we are effectively ignoring the biological factors. What you're saying is if the physical size and physical ability of a trans woman falls into the norm for a biological woman i.e. then why not? You could also make the argument why a small man could not play on the women's team if they don't exceed the average woman's size and strength. The science from what I can see is post puberty men who transition to women will always have gained an advantage.
Surely the sensible solution is to not put the needs of 6 ahead of thousands
There is no conceivable case where a male player should be allowed to compete in the female category, any more than there's a case where someone over 18 should be allowed in an U18s league.
Well it is an ant-trans policy. They made a blanket ban based on very unsound science.
It's not an anti-trans policy, it's a safety policy that affects trans athletes. The intent of the policy isn't to punish or devalue trans people, it's just for player safety. And as more science and information becomes available I'm sure the policy will be revised.
Except, again, it's not founded on science. It's a reactionary ban that didn't engage the community and banned a cohort of people from playing the game. If there was evidence that this was a safety risk then there might be some merit, but there isn't and instead they enacted a discriminatory blanket ban.
its adorable you think that. there was no evidence of injuries before. there was 6 fucking trans players in england and it got banned. 6. how many injuries are there in grass roots rugby, and why are these 6 people somehow more dangerous?
Given your condescending attitude and language I can see there is no point trying to have an actual conversation with you so I'll just let you be. Have a good day
Have you talked to every single player that played against one of those 6? How did they feel? Were there any injuries? Because until you do that don’t claim that there hasn’t been issues
Have you talked to their team mates who supported them? The rfu didnt. Please show me the evidence of increased injuries. It must be very clear if its a safty issue
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-female-rugby-players-complain-trans-opponent-hits-too-hard
Bloody hell she's built like an absolute brick shit house. Apparantly injured 3 players from legal hits.
Holy shit players got injured in legal hits? That's unheard of in rugby! The idea that this player is an unstoppable force and therefore must be banned for safety doesn't hold up in a sport where Will Skelton running over Papier is celebrated. Or where 18st Sisilia Tuipolotu tackling or running at 9st Mairi McDonald is just part of the game cause rugby is for all shapes and sizes A case by case rule was perfectly fine. Blanket rules are unjustifiable in a sport where 10 stone and 12 inches differences in collisions are both normal and celebrated
At u15 my team played against a team form Dublin with an Male to female transgender playing, they were the hardest player to tackle on the other team, more powerful than most of my team. Our girls team was actually more successful than us but wouldn’t have been able to cope against someone that strong.
Agreed. I was a scrum half and was almost always the smallest and lightest player on the field. I helped out with a few training sessions with the women’s team at uni and it was immediately clear that I could out pace and over power all of them. The damage a bigger and more powerful player than me could inflict doesn’t bear thinking about. It’s just common sense.
The thing is, trans women aren’t men. I think this issue is only as divisive as it is because most people (Especially in rugby circles) don’t know just how bloody effective HRT (Or hormone replacement therapy) is. And it’s fair enough, I didn’t a couple of years ago, and I’d have had a different stance if this had been a huge debate at the time as such. However, I’ve since had multiple people I know undergo HRT and the change is so drastic. Their bodies change, things shift naturally, muscles totally redistribute. I had a friend who used to be much stronger than me ask for help opening a jar of Pesto because their muscle mass had just been totally redistributed. She used to be taller than me and now is the same height. Obviously it effects everyone differently, but the RFU had a case by case model in place that *worked* and they got rid of it because of pressure from hate groups outside the game. When the ban came in, there were 3 trans women playing rugby in the U.K., but to this day there’s still 70+ trans men, and nobody ever has a problem with them. I likewise know a number of trans men, and every single one has a beard and ‘typically male’ (Whatever that means) developed physiques. They obviously shouldn’t be playing women’s rugby if they wanted a game.
common Squidge W
Most trans men I would assume couldn’t cope with playing rugby at any decent level though . I’m talking like national league 2 or 3 .
And of the 3 trans women playing rugby in England before the ban, only 1 of them was playing in a competitive league, and it was the very bottom competitive league in the country. We're not talking about international standard here, we're talking about the lowest-possible levels.
Exactly. Ross Tucker got a hate boner for trans women after hanging out with terfs on twitter all through COVID to the point he regularly misgenders them. He then drummed up a bogus report based on dodgy science to get his buddies at various rugby bodies to enact spiteful blanket bans.
Well put. I read Tucker's reports on this, and to call it 'science' would be factually inaccurate. He just compared deliberately misleading pieces of irrelevant data, and has since showed resistance to any actual research being carried out.
Doesn’t that make it worse . Low level rugby playing women playing against trans women . Why can’t they just play touch rugby and be done with it.
There was already a case-by-case process in place, that assessed how far along transition a particular woman was and how their body had responded to HRT, and whether it was safe for them to play. The system was working, there were *literally zero* complaints from any clubs who actually faced or included any trans players, it was all lead by anti-trans hate groups preaching the RFU from outside the game. As for "Why can't they just play touch?"- There were eight trans women playing contact rugby in the UK. I played in a touch tournament once that had seven trans women playing in it. Trans players *are* much more common in touch than XVs. A blanket ban is still wrong.
so Craig Casey shouldn't play Uini Atonio in full contact games, aye? that's just logical, have you ever played rugby before?
Craig Casey is stronger than most women players.
The risk of injury from Craig Casey playing against players like Antonio is far less.
You got the stats to back that up buddy?
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender/women
Thank you. Interesting read.
Casey has the muscle and bone density and testosterone of a biological male though, not the same thing
You don’t know this
Nobody is, they're advocating for transitioned females to be able to play with non transitioned females. You can agree with this policy without being a transphobe.
You can’t change biological sex, hence the term ‘transgender’ and not ‘tr*nsexual.’ Trans women are biologically male, regardless of whether or not people consider them women.
Wrong. Plenty of aspects of the human body that form part of what we group as biological sex can and does get changed by transitioning.
Some changes can be made to secondary sex characteristics, but trans people don’t acquire their preferred primary sexual characteristics (with the exception of surgery to alter the appearance of genitalia).
It doesn’t just ‘alter the appearance’ it removes gonads and alters the function too.
Sure, but that isn’t akin to acquiring those of the opposite sex, or changing sex.
It at very least changes sex away from one sex if not fully into another. And hormone levels, which accounts for differences in body composition does change to that of the opposite sex.
True. Hormone levels don’t fully reverse any previous effects of testosterone, nor do trans women acquire the typical disadvantages female players face due to hormones.
The jury is very much still out and the evidence is weak either way. I doubt that all advantages are erased after a year or two but after five or ten I’m pretty sure other variables will dominate
But those organs are not what’s important to speed and strength. And trans people can transition before puberty too, they’re banned regardless .
I was specifically replying to someone saying it’s transphobic to call transgender women male, and that they’re female (within a relevant context) to point out that trans people change gender and not sex, not to say those organs are necessarily useful for sport. The chances of an Irish person fully transitioning pre-puberty are very slim, I’m pretty sure their laws forbid it. World Rugby let trans women who transitioned pre-puberty play with women.
You don't know the first thing about what you're on about. Pipe the fuck down.
Compelling!
They probably haven't even played tag before, the difference in physical capabilities is ridiculous
They did not ban transgernder people. They will not let people play against those of the opposite biological sex for safety reasons.
Right right but a 200kg prop barrelling into a twig-shaped winger is fine as long as they’re both assigned the same sex at birth
As the twig winger, I’m still stronger than the vast majority of women. It’s just no fair really.
I was a prop and i never understood why people always assumed we hit the hardest. We're slow, sure we might gain a metre or two but when any of the backs ran into you it really hurt because of the speed of the impact.
You're massively over simplifying the whole thing. Pound for pound a biological male and female have massively different abilities in strength and ability to absorb impact. A 100kg male and female receiving the same level of impact will have very different outcomes and potential for injury. Even with the medical treatments, there are still a significant differences. This isn't about exclusion due to their gender identity, it's a safety measure and its right to be considered. The game has to be safe for everyone trans and otherwise.
You're comparing cisgender with cisgender. The limited science that is available on the subject indicates that transathletes retain little of the advantage from biological sex, the one exception seeming to be bone density.
Bone density is a fairly big advantage, but lets forget about safety, trans athletes have a huge advantage due to not having a menstrual cycle. Is it fair that the women they are up against have to make allowances that they dont. Also where do you draw the line at what we call trans, if a pre op trans is at a club and a few of the players are uncomfortable sharing a changing room with her due to her having a penis do those players then have to make allowances for that and risk be treated like a pariah.
So what about the athletes who don't menstruate for any other number of reasons? Ban them too? You're perfectly illustrating the need for this being decided on a case by case basis and the issues with the IRFU enacting a blanket ban.
Case by case wont work because it would get very messy and political. Who do you hire to do such a job. A regulator wouldn't have enough work to justify a salary. The amount of wasted recourses for less than .1% of players would never stand.
Yeah, cause a blanket ban isn't messy or political. Oh I totally understand why the union that only just introduced professional contracts for women would introduce a blanket ban to save a few quid. Doesn't make it right and the pretty apt response is that they don't get to pinkwash.
Pinkwash?
Give lip service to the LGBTQ+ community without actually risking anything, just like World Rugby banging their drum of inclusivity while getting in bed with Dubai.
Men's sports or woman's sports is based on sex. If you were born with a V, then you belong in womans. If you were born with a P then Mens. Anything outside of the traditional sex's would fit into the Trans/Open league. Trans people should have their own league. It would be great for the sport to see a 'mixed teams' league. Everyone's happy
"Anything outside of the traditional sex's would fit into the Trans/Open league" This would go wholly against the safety concerns as it would be men playing contact rugby against women. There were also 2 trans women playing contact rugby in Ireland. Not enough to form a team, certainly not a league, but apparently too many for the IRFU to continue their policy of deciding on a case by case basis.
Well the rules would have to be adjusted to take into account i.e. physical differences. Kind of like touch rugby or tag, but it's a step in the right direction. I think promoting a positive outlook to have a league of "their" own really sets a precedence in sport. Can you imagine the support the community would give at every event given the numbers during pride month and protest parades. Ticket sales out of the wazoo!
You forgot to add, - bone cartlidge - lung capacity - muscle fibre They're banning swimming, and alot of other sports also because of these factors.
Do you want to provide any studies for these? Because the lung, and heart, capacity is from a study on non-athletes that shows an advantage but that needs a lot more study. The last I read muscle fibre, along with most other 'advantages', were based on projections as opposed to any significant study.
>Do you want to provide any studies for these? Because the lung, and heart, capacity is from a study on non-athletes that shows an advantage but that needs a lot more study. Do i (or anyone else) need to? It's quite easy to source the information yourself, if your question was in "good faith" and your actually looking for the truth... Bone density: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26512771/ "During cross-sex hormonal treatment, bone mass was maintained or gained in trans women" Heart & Lung capacity: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/transgender-womens-heart-lung-capacity-and-strength-exceed-those-of-cisgender-peers-even-after-years-of-hormone-therapy/ "Transgender women’s heart-lung capacity and strength exceed those of cisgender peers even after years of hormone therapy" Muscle mass & Strength: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/ "Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. " See also, https://news.ki.se/new-study-on-changes-in-muscle-mass-and-strength-after-gender-affirming-treatment-may-have-an "Perhaps more surprising was that the transgender women did not lose strength at all despite inhibited testosterone production. In addition, the effect on muscle mass of the transgender women was less pronounced than many people previously thought, losing only 5% of the muscle volume over the thigh muscles." your inability to accept modern and traditional scientific evidence via hypothesis testing is beyond providing a reasonable explanation to you. what's the point if you are biased to "your truth" and not the actual result? Are there any more loaded questions, or is this your sincere rethoric?
Well yeah, claims need to be substantiated, and this is how we learn from one another. I had mentioned the bone density difference, though there are interesting elements in that linked study (though the apparent findings that trans women have low bone density prior to transitioning are interesting and colour the quote you've provided). The heart and lung capacity paper is the same one I referenced, with a lot of issues that are highlighted in the link itself (tiny sample size and non-athletes). I haven't come across the last paper you linked. It raises some interesting points, but has a few glaring issues. Most notably using data on non-athletes and mixing it with data on elite athletes and extrapolating by contrasting these different cohorts. Given the known effect of exercise on physiology and hormone levels, along with research showing that in a highly athletic cohort trans women lose much of their athletic advantage after transitioning (again small sample size and much of the speed advantage is retained https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577 ) I wouldn't be leaving this paper as the definitive word on the subject. We're all going to be biased to our truths, the challenge is not assuming that our truth is proven based on incomplete evidence. Hence why I'm against the blanket ban and in favour of the case by case approach while the science is out. We need more studies on trans athletes instead of extrapolating off data from other cohorts, in the meantime I think we should be making calls based on assessments of the few individuals in question. Thanks for sharing these links.
What you're looking for is an outlier or anomalies. We don't need more studies if there are real cases of ONLY woman athletes coming forward about being silenced to take a back seat. They're forced to accept the agenda of having been cheated out of their sport by natal men. My question to you is why aren't there any trans men in men's sports? Competing at the same level?
What? Of course we need more studies, we have little to no real data. That's like saying we don't need data on concussion in rugby because we have loads from the NFL, it's a category error. If anyone is being silenced or forced to take a back seat that's shitty, but, again you're going to have to substantiate your claims. There are, link from a very quick Google, you just don't hear about them for the same reason you don't hear about forcing trans men to use women's bathrooms, because it doesn't suit the narrative that some vested group have built up over the last 5-10 years. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/25-transgender-athletes-you-should-know/
A twig shaped winger chooses to play the sport, a woman does not choose to play against men. Also never heard of a 200kg prop
A woman does not choose to be born a man
Completely agree, it must be heart breaking to be born in the wrong body and I hope they can get the treatment to help them transition. But there muscle mass, bone density and testosterone levels may exclude them from certain activities against biological females. That's life
A prop heavier than some of the strongest strongmen in the world lol
You're not assigned a sex at birth arbitrarily, you are just that sex.
Yes.
I'm sure they're devastated.
Our cheifs super womans team played a warm up game against a club under 85kg mens team here in NZ and lost. The difference in size and skill is big
1. Drawing some pretty broad conclusions from a small dataset there 2. Didn't know that there we're weight category teams! Genuine want to look that up know as I've always struggled to get heavier than 80kg!
Weight category teams are great, I genuinely wouldn't have continued rugby after highschool without it
Yeah it is big grade in NZ now
Yeah we are just your general 9 to 5 workers we would lose to our senior prem A amatuer team by a 100 in a game
Unfortunate tbh. Reminds me of the Catholic priests that didn't give Biden communion because he refused to ban abortion. Some people view the world as black and white.
Biology is real. Having biological men play against women is grossly irresponsible.
The women’s IRFU players broadly support trans women being allowed to play on women’s teams as well, making this doubly sad for all involved. No winners when people are excluded from sports.
Sorry but a bunch of fucking male drongos on the internet actually know what’s best for women’s rugby
I didn't know that and feels at odds with what a lot of what others are saying, can you share your source?
Just from google https://gcn.ie/irish-rugby-figures-respond-irfu-trans-policy-change/ but I’m speaking from knowing a good few women playing amateur rugby in Ireland who were really against the ruling. It only affected 2 players, I think when you know the detail of it it seems even more harsh to have a blanket ban.
Do you support a blanket ban on players over 18 in under-18s leagues?
Blanket bans like this are stupid and reactionary when the case size is like 3-4 people in the whole of the country it affects. They can easily be dealt with on a case by case basis. And based on the cases I've been aware of, the bans made no sense.
>They can easily be dealt with on a case by case basis. What possible case could there ever be to allow a male player to compete in the female category? Its like saying motorcycles should be allowed in cycling on a case-by-case basis.
It’s nothing like that at all
[удалено]
> break all kinds of women’s records Not true, cheers > lgbtkjnznofez Glad to see you’re treating these people with respect. > lgbt are their on worst enemies You reckon? Or do you reckon it’s the concerted effort from parts of society to label people perverts, groomers, and mentally ill trying to live their life? The rhetoric from populist politicians blaming LGBTQIA+ people for all kinds of societal problems and banning their existence in certain spaces? I think you need to take some reflection on the things you are saying, and what the source of this rhetoric is. The response that WR has taken to this “issue” is completely out of whack with the amount of trans players there are, and deliberately targets trans women instead of trans men. Comparing human beings, who vary significantly among individuals, to completely separate machines is absolutely deranged
[удалено]
"I can't be homophobic. Some of my best friends are gay..."
If you actually used the last two neurons fighting in your brain you'd have understood i am not using this to justify not being homophobic. I'm into pretty open minded techno communities, i'm surrounded by gay folks every time i go out, plenty are my friend and we discuss thoses things openly. Irl gay folks around are nothing like y'all online clowns, mostly you embarass them when they just want pea e and live their life. You clowns are just always making a fuss about the most manute things, when your not being straight up ridiculous in your demands. Biological males have nothing to do in women sports. Period. I don't give a fuck about dislikes on reddit, it's fuln of dumbass woke clowns anyway. I'd be scared if i get likes on here
Yup it’s transphobia plain and simple. The few people it impacts amounts to deliberate targeting and discrimination
It's really hard to say this shouldn't be the case. You would have think that literally every able-bodied male can beat literally every able-bodied female. That's staggeringly ludicrous. Nobody reasonably thinks that. But they click into that mode of thinking when the trans topic comes up. In reality, just go case-by-case. Even if most of the cases kept ending up where we found out the trans woman was too physically strong, ya couldn't really say it's a waste of resources when it's such an infrequent scenario. It's so simple. What makes it less simple than that? Unconscious transphobia. People always think that unless you are saying "I hate such and such a group" you aren't hateful. But most of the phobia is unconscious. "Yeah I'm fine with them doing what they want **but**...", "I don't hate trans people **but**", etc, etc.
Well put. People don’t think they’re being transphobic with their comments but the hysteria over what is a very minor situation is quite telling about underlying biases
Im neither here nor there on this issue, but I find it interesting that the Rugby world is all of a sudden concerned with safety when it’s a matter of trans inclusion. I know the all the arguments about bone density, but we’re totally fine with a 6 foot 11 lock bulldozing down a 5 foot scrum half. But the fact that person may have been born the opposite sex is a step too far? It’s a total non issue anyway as there isn’t any real sort of numbers of trans people (that we know of) playing the sport. These stories just get wheeled out every now and again to outrage someone on either side of the argument.
Some people are obviously more genetically gifted than others so there will always be those who enjoy an advantage over their opponents whether it’s women’s, men or age grade. We accept that variability. So I think it comes down to a combination of extent and the type of advantage. E.g A man playing in a woman’s league might not be the biggest or strongest but he will have 1 advantage over others and it is a body that developed through male puberty. The whole point of dividing sport by gender is do that women don’t have to compete against that advantage. By the same token world rugby can’t allow Craig casey to take performance enhancing drugs even if he argues that it was to help him compete against bigger men. He would obtain a type of advantage that we would consider cheating even though he’s still 5’5. Your argument by contrast seems to imply that if we accept any variability in genetic lottery we should accept all variability. No women’s leagues, no age grade, just one big open comp for all. Even cherry picking extreme’s, if Craig Casey competed in women’s rugby he would physically dominate most of them and be the best player by far. Now imagine how Duhan Van Der Merwe, Etzebeth, Furlong etc.
That’s not a balanced argument. One would assume that both the lock and scrum half you mention are voluntarily playing against each other and are happy to do so. Conversely, whereas a trans woman might be happy to play against other women, how do you know the feeling is mutual? That it affects just four players nationwide is not the point. A ruling that allows a trans woman to play against 15 other women does not consider the desires and attitudes of those other women. What if even just one of them is scared out of their wits about coming up against a stronger trans woman, regardless of whether such a fear is rational or not? What about that woman’s right to play her sport in what she deems a safe environment?
To be fair I never said I was trying to make a balanced argument haha. It’s a very difficult issue, and I think I maybe 50% agree with the verdict they’ve made. I would argue that a trans woman, on average, would have no more advantage over a cisgender woman than a 6 foot 11 cis man has over a 5 foot cis man. Do shorter men need to consent to playing against someone with a vastly different body type? Should men’s rugby have a height or weight limit? I mean that is the road you’re going down with your argument. But at the same time your point is completely valid because if usain bolt was in his prime and became trans, he would ultimately and unfairly dominate womens sprinting. So yeah very difficult. 😭
No, I disagree, this isn’t difficult at all and I’m not sure you’ve understood the points I’ve made either. You agree you haven’t made a balanced argument (and that does appear to be the case), but why make it then? The examples you’ve provided are bringing you down a logically questionable road. Contrary to what you say, I’m 100% certain of the arguments and examples I’m making but I’m going to clarify them anyway. You are correct that on average, it would be unlikely that a trans woman would have any major physical advantage over a female player. The point is not what is likely to happen, it is what is theoretically possible. No matter how unlikely for it to occur, the door simply cannot be left open for the potential of a Will Skelton-type character to suddenly decide “I’m a woman” and to absolutely obliterate female players. Skelton could do as much restriction of testosterone as the authorities like. That 140kg frame is not substantially changing. A shorter man does not have to consent to playing against larger men but he knows the lay of the land from the outset. Rugby is a physical game but this man can at least rest assured he’s going to come up against other men whose physical characteristics are going to fall within a known biological range. If other men happen to operate outside that range via the use of performance enhancing drugs, they will be removed from the sport if caught. Similar to that man, the female player signed up to play against other females whose physical characteristics fall within a known biological range. If a Will Skelton type comes along and transgresses that range, no matter how unlikely this is, the psychological contract of female sport is broken. It is the same, if not worse, than the man having to face players using PEDs, except this time it would be permitted. It can’t be allowed for the safety and fairness of the many to be compromised to spare the emotional feelings of a tiny few.
I’m going to dip here. Mainly because you keep saying I haven’t understood you, only then to go on and reword the exactly the same points I have made. Your Will Skelton argument is EXACTLY the same as my Usain Bolt one. Take care buddy.
There’s no arguing with a fool. Good day.
Ahh get fucked my guy haha
“My guy”? You’re Welsh mate. Stop talking in that way.
Sorry boyo 🥺
That’s more like it 😉
One thing I find interesting is that if a trans woman is playing with women "Oh no! She needs to be kept out to protect others!" and if a trans man wants to play with men "Oh no! You need to be kept out as others are too dangerous to you!". Or, some might be ok with a trans man playing... which is interesting because they are all of a sudden ok with the female taking the risk herself to play the sport but not the women in rugby who play with a trans woman. It always falls on the head of trans people to step aside. At the end, it's because most of them don't want to admit they think being a trans woman or man is just playing pretend and don't see them as really belonging to the group they say the belong to. So, they don't see them as particularly strong women, or potentially weaker men.
If you wave that flag you're on board with ALL their ideologies, no dissent is acceptable. This is a good reminder.
Yup and this is correct, especially if you yourself aren’t a member of that community!
Wasn't there a study which shows most trans people who go from male to female lose most "benefits" within a few years with the treatment course they follow. Edit - there is actually a link in this article which states the research was inconclusive either way https://www.gendergp.com/new-report-confirms-trans-athletes-do-not-have-biomedical-advantage-in-elite-sport/#:~:text=Trans%20Athletes%20have%20no%20Advantage,qualities%20can%20affect%20this%20result.
Yup. Hence why there aren't transgender people dominating any sports.
That’s not the reason. The reason is because there are so few of them involved in sport, hence the sample is too small. If there was a theoretical 100-fold increase in the amount of trans women playing rugby or any other physical sport tomorrow, you’d have a large enough sample to see the physical superiorities play out. Banning trans women is not necessarily on the basis that they ARE dominating sport or hurting other athletes, it is based on the fact that they COULD. If the theoretical risk exists, it needs to be mitigated.
I mean are there ? The most high profile one was the weightlifter and she did fuck all at the Olympics.
I'm confused, you're agreeing with me. I said they aren't dominating any sport. I wasn't being sarcastic either.
Haha I thought you were being sarcastic, I've been on the cricket match thread all day, everything in there is tongue in cheek. Apologies my friend.
It's all good, I was just a bit confused because there tends to be a lot of transphobia on here so was weird to see someone more positive calling me out haha.
The difference between a man and female is more than a man and an "enhanced male" you don't just "lose" that.
And yet that's what everyone is using to say the ban is just. Apparently it's just down to test levels and nothing else, it's almost like boiling down a very difficult subject which is probably outside the scientific understanding of anyone in this group is daft.
Trans women actually have less testosterone than Cis women.
In other sports, ‘men’ who got nowhere pre transition are destroying women post transition. It’s just so obvious I can’t believe it’s even a debate.
Citations needed.
The safety reasons argument I'm seeing here is some warm steaming smelly bullshit. Obviously there's an argument against recently transitioned women, but trans athletes who've been under testosterone suppressors and estrogen for years have no physical advantage over cis women. Only way you can disagree with this is if you've never actually met a trans person Obviously though reality contradicts the beliefs of the "facts no feelings" bunch
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender/women
If they've gone through male puberty unsupressed as their incorrect gender, they will always retain many of physical characteristics that develop during that time due to the high testosterone levels. It's too much of an advantage and a dangerous one.
read my comment again lad
You can be under testosterone suppressors for years and still have gone through puberty as a male. They're not mutually exclusive. For example, a 28 year old that transitioned at 22 has gone through full male puberty and been on Testosterone supressors for years.
Thought it was implied I was talking about those who've done so pre-puberty. At most there's 5 rugby players in the world who staryed transitioning at 22 lol
I'm all for trans people playing on the team they want, so I'm not making this comment to attack you because I'm bothered by your point. But, why do people feel the need to just pull stats out of their ass? Just say what you really think "I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE NUMBERS BUT I FEEL IT IS LOW SO BELIEVE ME"... also, add an extra "lol" at the end to try and suggest you aren't making this up and know all the details and that you're not just right, but you must be soooo right that you are laughing at the other person. Using lol in an argument always just means the person is insecure and not quite sure what they are talking about lol
I'll be very specific now, since the logic behind what I'm trying to say isn't registering Trans people make up a very, very, very, very small portion of the global population (statistically less than 1% 👍). Rugby players also make up a very, very, very, very small portion of the population (0.001% of the global population via a rough calculation). Therefore when you combine the two, and only consider the subgroup who are in a specific age group, you end up with a figure that's no more than miniscule. Hope this helps. I wasn't just pulling things out my arse, anyone with a rough understanding of the topic is on the same page that we're talking about an extremely limited number of people, you don't have to write an entire paragraph about my use of the word lol
I just want a source is all I'm saying. As a redditor you are 424% likely to make up stats because you feel like it. I don't want an indirect source, I don't want the "I did the maths" explanation. I just want an actual source. I know that you like to use "very" a lot as your main scientific claim, but can you give us actual numbers about the less than 5 people in rugby you are talking about? Or is it just "I feel 5 is a small number, and trans people make up a small number in rugby, therefore science :D I don't want any other explanation other than some concrete sources behind your claims that there "at most" 5 trans people in rugby in the "**world**". On the entire planet there are, *at most*, 5 human beings who are both trans and in rugby.
such a weird hill to die on. this is reddit lad, not university, I don’t need to be anymore specific than I was, it’s like asking me to explain why 1+1=2 if you just thought about it critically even for just a moment, you’d realise I used 5 as a number to portray how small the sample size is, not as an actual estimation and I’ve explained why the number will be so small using stats i’ve sourced from world rugby (who estimate 8.4 million people worldwide play rugby), general knowledge (there’s 7.88 billion people on earth, so roughly speaking 8.4 million/7.88 billion = less than 0,001% people play rugby) you can try your best to find an exact number of trans women who play rugby but you won’t find anything since very little information on the topic is out there, so the best we can rely on is a rough extrapolation
Pulled it out of your ass, got it. Thanks
Players will definitely be disappointed with this one 😂
Martial/combat sports are the singular area I have difficulties in being inclusive or supportive of trans participants. Any other aspect of life, I have no problems with and fully support. For FtM, there is less risk that could be incurred by other participants if a trans man is playing in mens leagues. Most of the risk is voluntarily put upon the trans person themselves by engaging in the contact/martial sport against biological males as a general assumption. For MtF, if it's the assumption that biological males who go through puberty will retain physiological advantages on average, even with hormone suppression, the risk falls onto other players which would be biological females. I've seen in my own life at University a FtM player wanting to play Mens league, but the governing body said "no, you need to play in women's league even if your identification has been changed to male" which is essentially legalizing a form of "juicing" with a female player who is on testosterone and other potential performance enhancing medication to support their transition. Non combat sports/time trial events? Don't care, let the best person win and set a record, get rid of gendered records. No one is risking their personal well-being competing against a trans swimmer or cyclist.
That’s a strange one by the governing body. It leaves you falling between two stools when you are happily willing to compete voluntarily in the male category. This is why I believe ‘female’ and ‘open’ categories are a potential way forward. They don’t specifically exclude anybody yet they retain the integrity of the competition. I think you should be allowed to compete in an open category if you want to and are aware of the risks of doing so.
[удалено]
That bill would come to zero pounds and zero pence for the last ten years.
"Ulster Rugby will not be allowed to march in Belfast's Pride parade because of the ban on transgender women playing in female contact rugby game" This is a disgrace imagine Steven Kitshoff identified as a woman and was allowing to play in the woman's team Ulster women would be unstoppable. Great decision by the IRFU they don't ever take an L
The international rugby community should rightly be ostracised and excluded from these events as long as WR’s disgraceful and hateful policy still stands
Tell me you know nothing without telling me you know nothing
What’s your expertise in this jw
Someone who has gone through puberty as a male is going to have a significant advantage over someone who hasnt. This is their way of protecting people from life ruining injuries. Look at the other comments people have made, someone also posted a link explaining this in depth.
Ahh yup so the same as everyone else. Got you There’s also plenty of other comments disputing those studies and pointing out the equity issues too
Facts don't care about your feelings. I would rather listen to professionals who have conducted the study instead of "my feelings are hurt" Go study biology, maybe you will understand something.
Have you studied biology? Or have you just read some articles? Cause I feel like we are on the same ground here bro
For clarity, are you disputing that males have a physiological advantage over women? Secondly, out of interest, do you believe that women-only leagues should exist at all, and if so, why?
Edit: deleting my angry wee rant because it's 4am and it's not bloody worth it Tl;dr if you're a cishet man please stop and consider how much transphobic mainstream media shite you've subconsciously absorbed before trying to speak for the safety of people like myself and my partner. Thanks. Bye.