Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

IRFU Transgender Women Policy Change

13567

Comments

  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    But how much more powerful are these two women, in reality? Did they pose a threat? Did their team-mates want to play with them? Has any woman involved in rugby come out against this?

    People can make the point of 'what if Andrew Porter decides to wear a dress and call himself a woman' but that's the extreme end of it, isn't it?

    Trans people don't 'decide' they're trans, just like gay people don't decide they're gay. Using extreme examples is the ultimate in bad faith.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,770 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    It's not a question of those people operating in bad faith, I think there's an element of the irfu taking action to protect people from themselves. I've no doubt the players in question are sound, and their teammates like them a lot, but that doesn't mean that they aren't potentially at risk from them. Sex based segregation exists for a reason. Either you support that, and recognize the necessity of it, or you're advocating for the elimination of women's sports in totality.

    You also have to acknowledge that they aren't just acting in relation to these two individuals, they're projecting forward into the future to protect themselves from potential liability, and also presumably acting in good faith to protect other players from injury.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,599 ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    While I generally agree with the IRFU decision I do wonder if a line around puberty could have been drawn.

    IE any transwoman who transitioned before puberty can play womans rugby. The IRFU statement mentions the benefits of a male puberty. Probably completely unworkable though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 925 ✭✭✭DarkJager21


    No, because trans interference pre puberty should never ever be accepted. It is child abuse and nothing else.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,075 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    Anyone against this policy is arguing to allow things like this to happen.

    https://twitter.com/NawTrouble/status/1521169266958995458?s=20&t=rdJpWGuXj4XbSShxN9mslQ

    As for trans men playing in men's rugby, they'll still have a smaller frame due to their biology, so it's also a difficult one to justify, but at least they have a clause that the player acknowledges the risk to themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    IRFU's policy for the female U18 category reads:

    Players are only permitted to play in the gender category if the sex that was originally recorded at birth is female.


    Took me less than a minute to find that out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    ...did you look at the comments on the thread that the IRFU announced this policy on? A single glance would tell you this is incorrect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    My argument is that the case-by-case basis works because there is nuance to the subject. I haven't a notion what this wall of text is trying to prove but I do know what it is actually telling me.



  • Registered Users Posts: 245 ✭✭thegreycity


    Without wanting to delve into this particular policy change, the level of ignorance around trans people from some of the posters here really is something.

    Even the guy who was best friends with a trans woman as kids is still referring to her by male pronouns.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,579 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Faugheen, it sounds to me like you really don't understand the safety aspect at all.

    Or you're prepared to minimise it for the sake of inclusivity.

    Thats a dangerous enough road to take and one the Union simply cannot.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭M three


    This nonsense around adjudicating the whole thing on a case by case basis is totally deluded.

    Its MAYBE workable when you have only 2 cases but what happens when there is more. Do you expect the IRFU and everyone else to start employing people to adjudicate on these cases non stop? It would end up in a mess with adjudicating officers and sporting bodies being dragged to the courts every week by people throwing their toys out of the pram at any perceived slight.

    The IRFU are to be commended and applauded for their actions which bring clarity to the situation, will improve the safety of players, and will eliminate the risk of biologically female players being subjected to serious injury by biologically male players.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭Jonnyc135


    So your a young woman that has spent all her life hard work and grafting to be top of her game and somebody that's naturally going to be stronger through genetics is comming in swooping up medals as they will be at a clear advantage. Women's sport for birthcert born females, Men's sport for birthcert born males and if trans people want to compete on a level playing field they can set up there own tournaments.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    'It's totally deluded...to do the thing that we were doing before" is a fantastic take.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭M three


    Bingo.

    That can be reposted ad infinitum until the reality starts to sink in for the deluded posters on here.

    Those advocating for biological males to be let loose against biological females havent a notion when it comes to the business of getting insurance cover for rugby or GAA.

    The minute a biological male flattens and seriously injures a biological female on a sports field I guarantee you the insurance company underwriting the players injury fund would pull the pin. Then again some of the trans people foaming at the mouth at the IRFU this week would be more than happy at that outcome. If they cant play and be pandered to endlessly then why should anyone else be allowed to play🙄



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    The last two sentences here are the most illustrative thing you've written.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭M three


    says you. BTW the IRFU arent going to change their minds about this and I expect other sporting bodies all over the world will do likewise.

    So good luck with your campaign or crusade or whatever you call it. Its doomed.

    And I'll reiterate this again, kudos and well done to the IRFU. Putting the safety of biologically female players front and centre. The correct and proper decision.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    What campaign or crusade or whatever I call it do you think I'm on?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭M three


    Im off to bed, busy day of games to go to tomorrow. Delighted that the whole nonsense of biological males being allowed to play against biological females has been clarified and put to an end for good.

    You enjoy spending the day indoors writing complaints to the IRFU or whatever.

    Cheerio.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    I can't spend the day indoors writing complaints to the IRFU or whatever, I'm off on a campaign or a crusade or whatever.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭Capra


    Because he is not a woman at all and never will be. I dont accept this nonsense that we have to pretend that genders are meaningless. He hasn't transitioned medically and he calls himself a woman despite only occasionally dressing as a woman. Most of the time he just wears some makeup from what ive seen on his Facebook. He does not meet any definition of a woman. He has however always been a serious attention seeker. I remember him being abusive to his parents all the time and him writing weird gothic poetry on the blackboard before class. Never once did he act in an overtly feminine manner when we were in school together and ive known him since i was 10. This trans thing seemed to happen very abruptly a few years after he came out as gay. His Facebook is a constant stream of trans activism and from what I've seen of the trans pride parades that happen in Dublin and elsewhere an awful lot of trans people seem to share very similar traits. There's a serious degree of narcissism in someone who thinks they should be allowed to keep all of their male sexual characteristics and still demand that they are called a woman.


    Just because I vehemently disagree with you on something doesn't mean I'm ignorant around trans issues. I'd wager that I'm considerably more informed on the debate than most. I've yet to see a convincing or rational argument in favour of gender theory that doesn't fall to shreds under even light scrutiny. It's just not based in any hard repeatable science, it's all totally subjective.

    When you can't define gender how can you demand that someone must use pronouns which refer to gender. Its either meaningless or its not.


    I also think this argument that anyone who hasn't gone through puberty should be allowed play is ludicrous. Testosterone is not the only advantage men have. Just look at videos of prodigious talents like Tiger Woods or Lionel Messi before they hit puberty. They were doing insane things well beyond the reach of any girls many years older than them. The differences in coordination and reaction speed in boys and girls are very real well before puberty.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I agree with the policy but I think it will be very difficult to enforce in Ireland because of the Gender Recognition Act. The GRA allows you to get a new birth cert with the sex you chose. The IRFU policy states that "Players are permitted to play in this category if the player’s sex recorded at birth is female, irrespective of their gender identity.", how on earth are they going to enforce that without singling out specific people and making them prove they're female? A person who was born male can get a new birth cert that states they were actually born female and the law states that you have to treat them as such. The IRFU needed a different policy to World Rugby because of the way the GRA is written, I think they will have a lawsuit on their hands.


    At the time the GRA was being debated and people even mentioned sports, you had TD's acting like it was the most bizarre thing ever to even care about whether or not it would be fair, they knew this was a concern and were incredulous about it even being mentioned, it was in the draft heads of the original bill that participation could be restricted but was taken out because TD's thought it was bizarre to even contemplate.

    "Head 26: Sport Head 26 enables a body responsible for regulating participation in competitive gender-effected sporting events to prohibit or restrict the participation in such events of a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Act and who is seeking to compete in the acquired gender. The prohibition or restriction can be effected if it is deemed necessary to secure fair competition or the safety of other competitors."





  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Were women have been polled on transwomen in women's sport they been against it. These polls have been anonymous, for obvious reasons.

    The World Rugby survey is below

    17.-Transgender-Group-2020-Player-Survey-Results.pdf (world.rugby)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    I for one think that all players in women's sport should be transgender. That way they could attain the athletic levels that are achieved in the men's game, even compete against men and thus contribute to ticket sales that is, at long last, proportionate to the reimbursements/salaries they recieve.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Looking forward to this thread being closed @awec

    Didn't mean to tag you but I can't delete it for some reason



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    No no, you don't get to tell me I don't understand the safety element at all when I absolutely do. Don't come at me with bad-faith bollocks like that.

    I made the point that there are a small number of men who are playing every week around the country and are doing so in a way that is intentionally reckless and dangerous. Anyone who has played rugby at any adult level knows exactly the type of player I'm talking about and they've all either played with or against someone like that.

    These men are allowed to play every week, despite the fact they going out of their way to play dangerously. Tell me why they're allowed to play and these two women aren't? What are they doing so differently that is less dangerous than the threat these women serve?

    I understand the safety element, but it's completely hypocritical when there are dangerous bastards playing the game every week and they're going out of their way to do so. It's completely hypocritical to ban these women who haven't even done anything to anyone, and allow clowns above infiltrate the game.

    Safety works in all ways, not in ways the IRFU wants it to.



  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Ah so you are anti-trans, transphobic and everything else that comes with it.

    And before any other of the bleeding hearts start, not accepting 'this nonsense' is transphobic.

    Didn't take long for the mask to slip that you actually cared about women's sport. Bet you haven't spent a second involved in it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Why are women now called "Cisgender women". I think I would have opted out of the poll at that point.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    I've played at adult level and I'm not sure what you mean by these men. Do you mean dirty players?

    Also, not related to your post, why does the female category exist in sport?



  • Registered Users Posts: 231 ✭✭Roxxers


    load of woke junk we are killing our planet and people are more caught in this woke tripe , wake up



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭Jeju


    So we should be content to allow a circumstance where a 6'5 19 stone male born winger running at 25kmph crashes into a 9 or 10 stone female back in the fairness of aome sort of self entitled equality. It would be worse than getting hit by someone on an electric scooter.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭zidac


    The decision was not made in Ireland and would never be we just fallowing. At least world rugby had the balls to make the decision.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,965 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Loathe to get into another argument with you, Faugheen, but here goes…

    I think part of the reason for the ruling is that, down to the physiology, the players in question could be playing completely legally and it still could be dangerous for the opposition; they wouldn’t necessarily need to be playing recklessly.

    (And no one is going to argue that a reckless player shouldn’t get ban for reckless play. It’s not mutually exclusive).

    It’s a complex issue, where you have conflicting rights; the rights of trans woman to identify and play into a group vs the rights to safety and fairness.

    I’d like to read more about it, but it seems to me there’s no perfect solution, and I can see why the IRFU erred on the side of safety.



  • Administrators Posts: 54,316 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    @M three , @Capra , @Marcus Antonius , @Roxxers do not post in this thread again.



  • Subscribers Posts: 42,004 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    The right to safety and fairness for the majority should always trump the right to inclusivity for the minority, in cases where these rights directly clash.

    There's no winners in this, but it's necessary.

    In NZ rugby they segregate the larger kids from the smaller ones at underage levels, specifically because Polynesian kids develop much quicker and generally bigger than Caucasian kids. They do this in the name of safety and fairness.

    Insurance rules the world these days and you can be quite sure this decision at world Rugby level was based on exposure to liability. World Rugby have a duty to the game not too expose it to possible liability.

    Post edited by sydthebeat on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭boetstark


    Because these players that we all know are acting the assholes against guys who are of the same biological make up.

    I worked in a bank and an American guy , now a woman used to frequent the branch. He was about 6 five and bult like a tank. A work colleague of mine played rugby no 10 for munster and Irish sevens. She was about 5 foot 2 and about 52kg.

    How in the name of God is it acceptable to have that guy / girl playing against women.

    This is precisely why nz operate weight grade rather than age grade in underage rugby. Safety for the smaller player.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    The right to fairness is being overlooked here imo.

    I'm sure everyone's played at some stage against a team who had a player who shouldn't be playing for them. That player mightnt scored 10 tries but they did make a difference.

    The transition process doesn't remove the male advantage so while it's not an easy decision it is the right one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,148 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    So basically it's not discriminating against trans men but is discriminating against trans women.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,148 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Isnt that the point in a way though. These two women are a precedent and nobody can point to any injuries/safety incidents posed by these two women.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,148 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Right so it IS about excluding transwomen then

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,830 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Well yes, but not because someone doesnt like them.

    Its about the risks, allowing transgender men to play does not pose a risk to all other players. The men themselves can make an informed decision on the risks to themselves and decide to play. If you allow transgender women then the risk is to the other players. All other players cannot make an informed decision to play.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,772 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I understand the safety element, but it's completely hypocritical when there are dangerous bastards playing the game every week and they're going out of their way to do so. It's completely hypocritical to ban these women who haven't even done anything to anyone, and allow clowns above infiltrate the game.

    There are disciplinary protocols for dealing with dangerous play though. They are obviously not 100% effective (or even close to it at a lower level) but I don't really see where the hypocrisy is supposedly coming from.

    You could certainly argue that this simply wasn't an issue that should have been in any way prioritised, and given the numbers involved it doesn't seem that much of an issue at least yet. But I suspect their hand was somewhat forced on that front.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    Obviously nobody is going to change their minds on this, but for those supporting this outright ban instead of the more sensible case-by-case basis, I'd look at the type of person who's cheering on this ban alongside you and ask myself if they are credible people and if they make good bedfellows.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,830 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    How would a case by case actually work? There has to be some guidelines, otherwise there would definitely be discrimination cases brought to court. And if you agree that there are guidelines then you are really just arguing where the line in the sand is drawn. Athletics had a line in the sand policy but that is now under review.

    There isn't an easy answer here. I don't want to see people banned but on the other hand you clearly need some rules on this. And no matter where you put those you are going to disciminate against some people.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,772 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    They make **** bedfellows, but you can't control other people and its not generally a good way of deciding an argument. Also, let us not pretend this is in any way a fringe view - restricting transwomen in women's sports is generally quite well supported (easily a majority in most cases).

    Case-by-case has many of its own issues. On what parameters do you base it, how frequently do you test it, what happens if someone "becomes" too strong from training? Forced to dial it back a bit to hit certain markers? Its also, bizarrely, much more open to individual discrimination action.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Yeah that's a nonsense point.

    On the case by case rule what were the guiding rules for it? I can't seem to find any details on it.

    Just beware the previous rules were for a kevel of 5nmol/l of testosterone for a year. That's still twice the level of a biological female and there's never been anything to back up why people think this would equalise the performance stats. It was literally a guess.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    I can't play u12 girls rugby becaise I'm a 45 year old man and would have a distinct advantage over 12 year old girls.

    This rule bans trans women that have went through puberty as a male prior to transition because of the scientifically proven advantage they have over other athletes. That's not discrimination just because you don't like it.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    The reality is that the old rules discriminated against women.

    That's not transphobic nor is it bigotry.

    It was just a guess that a reduction in testosterone for a year which was still twice the female level, used to be 4 times, would equalise the difference. It also has to be said that there was enough information available before this re was brought in that this guess wasn't a very good one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,024 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    I listened to a few spokes-people from the various transgender advocacy groups etc.

    The impression I got they were not sincere in their opposition to the IRFU ruling.

    To me it seemed that they are just saying what their advocacy groups would expect them to say.

    As I believe if they showed any common sense reasoning on the issues at hand, it would mean a backlash from their own community.

    So instead it is used as a broader clarion call by the groups as a whole where ‘human rights’ is mentioned.

    This is done whether they sincerely believe it is a human rights issue or not IMO. No mention of fairness or safety concerns.

    I noticed another poster said the transgender rugby issue should be decided on a ‘case by case’ basis. But where would the line be? Rugby is a hard contact sport it is not snooker, or even soccer.

    Where would the line be on unfair competitive advantage v natural exceptional physical attributes of those of the same gender/age group?

    If Rugby was decided on a ‘case by case basis’ it would open a can worms as it would set a precedent for all sports/all genders/all ages.

    For example Ross Barkley Soccer player (in green) playing in an u13 soccer match


    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    The GRA allows you to get a new birth cert with the sex you chose.

    I doubt if it will apply. There will still be an at birth record the IRFU can refer to. They are looking at biology and safety, not personal choice.



Advertisement