Passionate about including trans women
Pink News is eager to see men taking over women’s sports.
A women’s rugby union team has explained why it is passionate about including trans women as the RFU votes on banning them from the sport.
No the RFU doesn’t vote on banning them from the sport. As usual.
The York RI Ladies team took to Twitter ahead of a Rugby Football Union (RFU) vote on an outright ban on trans women and girls, taking place on Friday (29 July).
No it’s not an outright ban on women and girls. That’s the usual lie. It’s a ban on men in women’s rugby.
The RFU, which governs rugby union in England, will vote on a recommendation for a “policy change for contact rugby to only permit plays in the female category whose sex recorded at birth was female”.
See? That’s not a ban. Men can still play in the male category.
The measure will allow trans men to continue to play the sport “if they provide their written consent and a risk assessment is carried out”.
In the men’s category, I’m guessing, because it wouldn’t be fair to let testosterone-laced women play in the women’s category.
The governing body says it has considered “peer reviewed research” which claimed there are “physical differences between those people whose sex was assigned as male and those as female at birth, and advantages in strength, stamina and physique brought about by male puberty are significant and retained even after testosterone suppression”.
Gee, how silly, right? When we all know there are no such advantages whatsoever at all?
Meanwhile it’s just totally up in the air whether or not men have any physical advantages over women when playing rugby.
But they’re York RI LADIES so presumably they’re not also York RI Gentlemen, or they would call themselves York RI Ladies and Gentlemen. So even though they’re grassroots sports they still have a women’s team, which can’t be both a women’s team and “for everyone.” So…what’s their point? Other than a mindless invocation of warm fuzzies about including EVERYONE? If sports include everyone there’s no room left for the sports part – there would just be a big crowd of people milling around.
But the way to get more British women doing physical activity isn’t to include more men in women’s sports. I think the problem is clear enough? Men aren’t women, so adding men to your women’s sport will be a dead loss in terms of upping the numbers of women doing physical activity.
Hey, I’d qualify for that! Sometimes I mill around all by myself.
I suppose that there would be nobody in the stands if everyone was on the field. Unless, the “sport” itself was open to all, but getting in to watch as a spectator was a paid position surrounded by all sorts of rules and restrictions regarding eligibility.
There is a great deal of physical contact in rugby. While scrums were forbidden in some leagues during the pandemic to reduce opportunities to spread C19, they didn’t eliminate tackling, nor hoisting players for inbound play.
So, I am curious as to why men would want to play rugby with women in their twenties. Check out the photo for the inbound play:
https://pages.uoregon.edu/jrussial/cyberj/lifestyle/stories/taylor01.html
I’m no longer curious.
Golly.
As I understand it, rugby can be brutal, as brutal as American football, boxing, or martial arts. Waiting for the next Fallon Fox incident is irresponsible at best, and an outright ban is the only sensible course. Either that or don’t call it women’s rugby, because it will no longer be that.
RFU voted in favour of the motion, 33-26, 2 abstentions.
Do they need anything else to sway the masses?
@Mike Haubrich: it’s called a line-out, and there are much better opportunities for a pervy man to cop a sly feel in the course of a game – you can get away with a lot if you’re tackling someone. If I was so inclined, I’d play second row, since at scrum time you get to stick your arm through the prop’s legs and grab the waistband of her shorts. Plus, your face is planted between two arses and your other arm is wrapped around your fellow lock’s waist. Can’t imagine why any man would want to play on a women’s team…
@twiliter: yes, it is brutal. The men’s game is possibly more so than American football, as there is no padding involved. I’ve watched a lot of women’s rugby (the team I support has a professional women’s team as well) and I can report that there is no lack of commitment there, either. But, as good as they are, as fit, strong and committed as they are, I wouldn’t give them a snowball’s against a Manu Tuilagi or a Dan du Preez. Hell, even some of the smaller players on the men’s team would make mincemeat of them.
FYI, here are some pictures I took at one of the women’s matches.
Yes Graham, I well remember John Hopoate having to go into the opposition rooms to retrieve his wedding ring after he left it in another man’s anus. :-)
How come it NEVER occurs to them that men who want to play grassroots, recreational sports can play on grassroots, recreational MEN’S teams? The men are incloosived on the men’s team. (Non) problem solved.