World Rugby considering banningTrans women competing in Women's rugby

[BnM]

World Rugby is considering banning trans women from playing women’s rugby because of significant safety concerns that have emerged following recent research, a decision that would make it the first international sports federation to go down that path.

The Guardian can reveal that in a 38-page draft document produced by its transgender working group, it is acknowledged that there is likely to be “at least a 20-30% greater risk” of injury when a female player is tackled by someone who has gone through male puberty. The document also says the latest science shows that trans women retain “significant” physical advantages over biological women even after they take medication to lower their testosterone.

As a result, World Rugby’s working group suggests that its current rules, which allow trans women to play women’s rugby if they lower their testosterone levels for at least 12 months in line with the International Olympic Committee’s guidelines, are “not fit for the purpose”.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... y-concerns

[Hugo]

It seems they have done their homework and produced a thorough report to support their stance.

A 20-30% increase in the likelihood of injury is very significant given that rugby (and any aggressive contact sport) is going to have to come up with many measures to ensure player safety moving forward. By that I mean just to keep the sport alive.

[stemoc]

its fine for transwomen to compete in the women category in basically any sport except contact sports, that just give them an unfair advantage, this was always a given..i'm shockedit took WR his long to decide this

[sockwithaticket]

It seems they have done their homework and produced a thorough report to support their stance.

A 20-30% increase in the likelihood of injury is very significant given that rugby (and any aggressive contact sport) is going to have to come up with many measures to ensure player safety moving forward. By that I mean just to keep the sport alive.

Lower down the article is this:

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

Crucially those advantages are not reduced when a trans women takes testosterone-suppressing medication, as was previous thought - “with only small reductions in strength and no loss in bone mass or muscle volume or size after testosterone suppression”.

and this

The proposals also recommend that transgender men should be allowed to play against other men – provided they get a physical assessment and a therapeutic-exemption-use certificate and sign an statement accepting they understand the greater injury risks.

You'd imagine there'll be a fair amount of noise from outside of the game over it. I suppose one potential solution is if any womens team wants to feel particularly inclusive they could ask their members to sign a waiver in order to play with/against transwomen similar to the waiver that's being proposed for transmen to ok themselve to play against men.

[BnM]

With regard to bottom paragraph if that's true then Trans women shouldn't be competing against women in any physical sport. And asking women to sign a form saying it's alright by them at the moment would be unfair as there would be a lot of pressure and fear of being called transphobic going on. I don't know what the answer is for trans people but if those stats are correct I don't see how it's tenable for them to compete with their new gender male or female, one is an unfair advantage and both are potentially dangerous.

[Enzedder]

Set up a separate trans competition - although I think demand will be very close to nil

[Hugo]

Lower down the article is this:

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

You'd imagine there'll be a fair amount of noise from outside of the game over it. I suppose one potential solution is if any womens team wants to feel particularly inclusive they could ask their members to sign a waiver in order to play with/against transwomen similar to the waiver that's being proposed for transmen to ok themselve to play against men.

Those are big, big numbers, especially when you consider how much more dangerous rugby is to begin with compared to other team sports such as football or netball.

Looking at the stats, to allow trans women to play against women at all seems irresponsible.

[Chrysoprase]

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

If this turns out to be beyond dispute (faint hope given the attention its going to receive from outside the game), then surely it's an argument against trans women competing against women in any sport due to the unfair advantage it will bring.

[Lemoentjie]

its fine for transwomen to compete in the women category in basically any sport except contact sports, that just give them an unfair advantage, this was always a given..i'm shockedit took WR his long to decide this

Surely they have an advantage even in non-contact sports such as cycling or running. Men have stronger muscles, carry more oxygen in the blood, larger lung capacity. That doesn't instantly vanish when a man decides to become a woman.

[Hugo]

its fine for transwomen to compete in the women category in basically any sport except contact sports, that just give them an unfair advantage, this was always a given..i'm shockedit took WR his long to decide this

Surely they have an advantage even in non-contact sports such as cycling or running. Men have stronger muscles, carry more oxygen in the blood, larger lung capacity. That doesn't instantly vanish when a man decides to become a woman.

It does but I think a point that is worth making is that although the trans athlete still has an advantage in a sport like cycling or running that does not translate to greater risk for the other competitors. In rugby by allowing heavier, faster and stronger trans athletes to compete against women you are jeopardizing their safety and increasing their likelihood of injury.

[JM2K6]

Hopefully we can also ban players who are too big in rugby regardless of whether they are trans or not. Player safety is paramount - drum people like Ben Tameifuna out of the game.

[sockwithaticket]

With regard to bottom paragraph if that's true then Trans women shouldn't be competing against women in any physical sport. And asking women to sign a form saying it's alright by them at the moment would be unfair as there would be a lot of pressure and fear of being called transphobic going on. I don't know what the answer is for trans people but if those stats are correct I don't see how it's tenable for them to compete with their new gender male or female, one is an unfair advantage and both are potentially dangerous.

Oh absolutely and it's not something I'd recommend, but the way the debate is at the moment, and I've seen it with a few friends, either fear of the TERF label or well-intentioned, genuine support of Transwomen will likely lead to some in the rugby community wanting to provide a play option. The content of this article would suggest that no union could sanction it, so I guess the only way around it for those that want to or feel the need to include trans women at their club would be some sort of waiver. Clubs might find themselves lacking for opponents or insurers in that instance, though.

[tcc_dc]

it's common sense....but like you all said, eventually some keyboard warrior will get a hold of this and start pushing sponsors to renounce World Rugby and what not. The reaction then will be telling.

And if you are a girl, not signing is a no win situation. Feel bad for them.

[robmatic]

it's common sense....but like you all said, eventually some keyboard warrior will get a hold of this and start pushing sponsors to renounce World Rugby and what not. The reaction then will be telling.

And if you are a girl, not signing is a no win situation. Feel bad for them.

Reasonable odds that most of the activists and commenters pushing for trans inclusion in female sports will have very limited experience of sport or athletic activity.

[Bimbowomxn]

Hopefully we can also ban players who are too big in rugby regardless of whether they are trans or not. Player safety is paramount - drum people like Ben Tameifuna out of the game.

I’d be a try scoring machine playing for my kids under 10’s and it’s only discriminatory that I’m banned because of my age.

[Ali Cadoo]

To give them their dues, the Taranaki Girls U11 side gave me a fair trial and just said I wasn't good enough.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There are arguably some reasonable points drawn up in the report which will not be reasonably considered. Though a lot of this could be addressed if we simply raise the profile and numbers participating in women's rugby, there are sufficient numbers/grades in men's rugby that you don't get too many stupid mismatches in talent/power, but we're not there yet with women's rugby. Hopefully we can have most of the effort directed into support for the women's game which has already come a long way rather than a fight that only speaks to a tiny % of society/rugby proving much more distracting than it warrants

[Akkerman]

Players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).

why don't they just say women ? /JKR mode

[Hugo]

Beeb article on an American trans woman rugby player who "fears losing rugby as a community": https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/53667683

[BnM]

So if this kind of evidence is considered irrelevant....

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

Crucially those advantages are not reduced when a trans women takes testosterone-suppressing medication, as was previous thought - “with only small reductions in strength and no loss in bone mass or muscle volume or size after testosterone suppression”.

....where does that leave women's sports.

I'd be interested to know what % of Trans people agree with this and are pushing for inclusion.

[Carter's Choice]

If safety really is the concern then surely the next step is banning Polynesian players from all levels of Rugby? The difference in size and strength, particularly at junior levels, is simply too great to ignore. Surely more individuals have been injured trying to tackle Polynesian players than have been injured trying to tackle trans players?

[Hugo]

So if this kind of evidence is considered irrelevant....

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

Crucially those advantages are not reduced when a trans women takes testosterone-suppressing medication, as was previous thought - “with only small reductions in strength and no loss in bone mass or muscle volume or size after testosterone suppression”.

....where does that leave women's sports.

I'd be interested to know what % of Trans people agree with this and are pushing for inclusion.

That tweet is closed to comments. If they believe in their position they should be willing to engage in good faith discussion about it in my opinion.

I'd like to see some studies on this to see how many people would be affected by a ban but also to see how these trans athletes perform. Are they usually the most athletic players on the pitch? What is their background in rugby and so on.

[Raggs]

If safety really is the concern then surely the next step is banning Polynesian players from all levels of Rugby? The difference in size and strength, particularly at junior levels, is simply too great to ignore. Surely more individuals have been injured trying to tackle Polynesian players than have been injured trying to tackle trans players?

Is the average polynesian 25-50% stronger, 30% more powerful, 40% heavier and 15% faster? I doubt it.

[Raggs]

So if this kind of evidence is considered irrelevant....

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

Crucially those advantages are not reduced when a trans women takes testosterone-suppressing medication, as was previous thought - “with only small reductions in strength and no loss in bone mass or muscle volume or size after testosterone suppression”.

....where does that leave women's sports.

I'd be interested to know what % of Trans people agree with this and are pushing for inclusion.

That tweet is closed to comments. If they believe in their position they should be willing to engage in good faith discussion about it in my opinion.

I'd like to see some studies on this to see how many people would be affected by a ban but also to see how these trans athletes perform. Are they usually the most athletic players on the pitch? What is their background in rugby and so on.

Because Twitter is such a good platform for good faith discussion...

[sockwithaticket]

If safety really is the concern then surely the next step is banning Polynesian players from all levels of Rugby? The difference in size and strength, particularly at junior levels, is simply too great to ignore. Surely more individuals have been injured trying to tackle Polynesian players than have been injured trying to tackle trans players?

Probably in raw numbers, but only because trans participation in rugby is even lower than their minute population incidence. Proportionately? No one would know because those stats aren't being kept. Top disingenuous question, troll.

Weight grade rugby absolutely should be a think up to a certain age. Not sure what the cut off should be, but I'd be willing to let the science tell me.

[Hugo]

So if this kind of evidence is considered irrelevant....


....where does that leave women's sports.

I'd be interested to know what % of Trans people agree with this and are pushing for inclusion.

That tweet is closed to comments. If they believe in their position they should be willing to engage in good faith discussion about it in my opinion.

I'd like to see some studies on this to see how many people would be affected by a ban but also to see how these trans athletes perform. Are they usually the most athletic players on the pitch? What is their background in rugby and so on.

Because Twitter is such a good platform for good faith discussion...

Good point!

[Carter's Choice]

On balance I think WR is probably making the correct decision in banning trans people from playing. But can we please stop with the pretense that we are an inclusive sport because we aren't? Forcing trans people to play as their dead gender is about as un-inclusive as you can get. The only thing worse would be forcing them to use their dead name on the team list. With this decision WR is effectively telling trans people that they have no place or role in the game of Rugby. An forcing a trans woman to play Rugby as a man, when she is considered a woman in every other aspect of her life, is going to result in legal challenges which I hope WR is financially prepared for.

[FujiKiwi]

Wouldn't a banning be a bit of an overkill, in addition to looking discriminatory?

There may be instances where a trans person playing in a rugby match would pose too great a danger. My guess is that these sorts of instances are fairly rare.

I suppose it's up to a ref to call off a match if there are unforeseen circumstances that make the match too dangerous. I'm thinking of weather conditions like too much water on the pitch, or lightning or whatever. Or maybe broken glass found on the field. Stuff like that.

My guess is that in the case of water on the pitch, or atmospheric conditions that might cause lightning, that it's just a matter of common sense prevailing, rather than worldwide, specific directives from the governing body. There are so many variables, teams and officials work it out on the day through consensus/common sense with the referee making the final call.

Can't the same thing happen here? There are so many variables, it's silly to ban trans players, many of whose participation will not cause too much risk anyway. As with calling off a game for weather or ground conditions, leave it on a case by case basis.

Instead, this ban looks intolerant and backward, and hurts vulnerable people by telling them they're not wanted.

[Niegs]

Wouldn't a banning be a bit of an overkill, in addition to looking discriminatory?

...

Instead, this ban looks intolerant and backward, and hurts vulnerable people by telling them they're not wanted.

I think I expressed some similar feelings in the other thread. Case by case sits better with me than a all-in ban. There's a player in the BC women's premiership who's not the biggest, but is apparently the strongest (I've a female friend who looks bigger but she says being hit by the trans player is harder than she's ever experienced). But their club had a trans player in the 2nds who wasn't very good, quick but not the quickest, and apparently not any stronger than anyone in the 2nd division. Should she be banned as well? That wouldn't sit well with me because she has no unfair advantage.

As someone said in contradiction - which I thought was fair - there are smaller men who can't hack rugby because of their diminutive size, lack of strength, etc. The game's not for everyone. True. But as much as rugby's propaganda machine annoys me at times, being a game for "all sizes" is a noble thing to uphold for those who could give it a crack (with fair assessments, I think, where transgender players are concerned, because 'fair' also needs to consider the majority of women who'd have to play against a trans person with a clear advantage).

[sockwithaticket]

I think the problem with that is who's doing the case by case assessment, local club? Say you get a very ideological person who clears someone to play who is very much an enhanced injury risk for natal women and does hurt someone significantly or is sufficiently dominant that it has a negative impact on participation levels.

Ali's Choice keeps banging on about lawsuits from the trans side , well what about lawsuits from natal women if forced to play with trans women? There're are certainly far more of the former than the latter.

Organisations desire and arguably need to have very clearly defined rules. Look at lockdown guideline adherence (at least in the UK) for why allowing too much room for interpretation or leeway to do one's own thing isn't a good thing on a large scale.

[FujiKiwi]

Ali's Choice keeps banging on about lawsuits from the trans side , well what about lawsuits from natal women if forced to play with trans women?

From what I’ve heard, the Natal women are burly and brawny enough to handle themselves in these situations.

[Lobby]

I think the problem with that is who's doing the case by case assessment, local club? Say you get a very ideological person who clears someone to play who is very much an enhanced injury risk for natal women and does hurt someone significantly or is sufficiently dominant that it has a negative impact on participation levels.

Ali's Choice keeps banging on about lawsuits from the trans side , well what about lawsuits from natal women if forced to play with trans women? There're are certainly far more of the former than the latter.

Organisations desire and arguably need to have very clearly defined rules. Look at lockdown guideline adherence (at least in the UK) for why allowing too much room for interpretation or leeway to do one's own thing isn't a good thing on a large scale.

I agree; anything other than a clear and consistent policy that applies to all would be unworkable. Otherwise you would have a situation where one ref could allow a trans player to participate, and another who decides they can't. The second ref might then be accused of discrimination and could be liable under equalities legislation. Similarly, if a another player was injured by the trans player, would the first ref then be liable for allowing that player to participate in spite of the known risks to others?

[Carter's Choice]

Ali's Choice keeps banging on about lawsuits from the trans side , well what about lawsuits from natal women if forced to play with trans women? There're are certainly far more of the former than the latter.

That's a distinct possibility. I think it would currently be hard to argue that natal women are discriminated against by WR, but it's possible. However I think it's pretty obvious that forcing a trans woman to play as a man could be considered discrimination and the courts would have to decide if WR was acting appropriately.

[sockwithaticket]

Ali's Choice keeps banging on about lawsuits from the trans side , well what about lawsuits from natal women if forced to play with trans women? There're are certainly far more of the former than the latter.

That's a distinct possibility. I think it would currently be hard to argue that natal women are discriminated against by WR, but it's possible. However I think it's pretty obvious that forcing a trans woman to play as a man could be considered discrimination and the courts would have to decide if WR was acting appropriately.

I think they'd probably approach from a endangerment/duty of care angle rather than discrimination..

There'd be a difference between not permitting trans women to play natal women and forcing them to play with men. Slight, but it's there.

At the crux of everything here is biology. Biological and resultant physiological capabilities of the average man and woman are the reason that basically all sport activity was divided upon sex. If we say that doesn't matter anymore and that legal and societal definitions of gender override that, we may as well do away with any pretence of division and have everyone compete with everyone at which point natal women would effectively disappear from the sporting landscape at the elite sporting level and I suspect more or less from the amateur too. They'd retreat to solo or non-sporting (but still athletic) activity like running, the gym, zumba classes and so on.

[Sandstorm]

We have age or weight group Rugby for Boys to protect smaller players. Trans players need the same distinction?

[Niegs]

Well this is interesting. Rugby Canada usually do whatever WR says, but say they don't agree with this ...

https://www.rugbyontario.com/news-detai ... 93/?tag_id

[.OverThere]

On balance I think WR is probably making the correct decision in banning trans people from playing. But can we please stop with the pretense that we are an inclusive sport because we aren't? Forcing trans people to play as their dead gender is about as un-inclusive as you can get. The only thing worse would be forcing them to use their dead name on the team list. With this decision WR is effectively telling trans people that they have no place or role in the game of Rugby. An forcing a trans woman to play Rugby as a man, when she is considered a woman in every other aspect of her life, is going to result in legal challenges which I hope WR is financially prepared for.

Which is worse?
Forcing one set of people to accept playing with another, or forcing another set of people to accept playing with another?

[Carter's Choice]

On balance I think WR is probably making the correct decision in banning trans people from playing. But can we please stop with the pretense that we are an inclusive sport because we aren't? Forcing trans people to play as their dead gender is about as un-inclusive as you can get. The only thing worse would be forcing them to use their dead name on the team list. With this decision WR is effectively telling trans people that they have no place or role in the game of Rugby. An forcing a trans woman to play Rugby as a man, when she is considered a woman in every other aspect of her life, is going to result in legal challenges which I hope WR is financially prepared for.

Which is worse?
Forcing one set of people to accept playing with another, or forcing another set of people to accept playing with another?

You tell me? I think neither option is ideal.

[stemoc]

after they impose the ban, they may need to impose some new laws of testing for 'the xx chromosomes.. we don't want a caster semenya issue in the sport though i'm pretty sure a lot of women that do play rugby may fall in that category.. i know a few PNG women players that do..athletics after the caster case has no issue with "Hermes" but trans is a completely different issue..though a few 'female' indian athletes did get banned over the last decade.

[Steve]

As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”

If this turns out to be beyond dispute (faint hope given the attention its going to receive from outside the game), then surely it's an argument against trans women competing against women in any sport due to the unfair advantage it will bring.

100% this. Contact or physicality alone shouldn't dictate the fairness of it. Its either mixed sexes or it isn't whether its chess or power lifting.