Do it to her instead
Yet another Diddums. He’s distraught.
The Rugby Football Union have been rocked by a legal challenge against their ban on transgender women from female contact rugby.
…
Telegraph Sport can reveal transgender player Julie Curtiss has issued the RFU with a pre-action protocol letter – a legal document written to resolve a dispute before court proceedings are commenced – following the controversial decision.
It’s “controversial” to keep men out of women’s sports – that’s how stupid this whole thing has become.
Curtiss, one of two trans players who featured in a special Telegraph Sport report about the impact of the RFU’s ban last month, claims the governing body’s new gender participation policy discriminates against her on the basis of her gender reassignment protected characteristic under Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010.
But giving a woman’s spot to him discriminates against that woman. He’s a man, so he has that massive advantage, however fervently he identifies as a woman; therefore he is not the one most discriminated against here. His taking a woman’s place would be worse discrimination than her keeping her place. It is not fair to make women pay the price for men’s sexual or “gender” fantasies.
He can still play in the men’s division. No problem.
Maddog is correct. The RFU would be guilty of discrimination under the act if they told him that he couldn’t play in the men’s division because of gender reassignment; there’s no obligation to allow him to play in the women’s division, because he’s not female.
‘Rocked’ by the consequence they knew would happen when they made the decision happening.
Someone or other on Twitter defended Curtiss’ distraughtitude by saying it doesn’t matter that a woman lost a place on the team because of him since nobody (he reckoned) cares about rugby at that level anyway, so she shouldn’t be upset.
I asked why, if that’s the case, Curtiss is so distraught. But funnily enough, I didn’t get an answer.
The only consistent thing in this movement is inconsistency.