The Australian reports:

Liberal senator Claire Chandler has been attacked as “transphobic” after she raised concerns about transgender-inclusive policy exposing women and girls in sport to injury and unfair competition.

Senator Chandler spoke on trans-inclusive sport in the Senate last week, and cited new research for World Rugby which concludes that female players would face a 20-30 per cent higher risk of injury if biological males who identify as women were allowed to compete.

On Monday Senator Nita Green, a leader of the LGBTQ ginger group Rainbow Labor, rose to denounce Senator Chandler’s campaign to defend female sport as an attempt “to veil her transphobic views as faux feminist values”.

What’s faux about them? What’s faux about thinking women should not be run over by men in their own sports? What’s faux about thinking women’s sports should continue to be for women?

“We know where (Senator Chandler) is getting her speeches from because she said (in the Senate) ‘I stand with JK Rowling and millions of women around the world who are determined to ensure our rights as women are not traded off in the name of diversity’,” said Senator Green, who claimed gender debate was “incredibly hurtful” for LGBT youth.

What about female youth? What about how “incredibly hurtful” it is for girls to have to play against male youth on female teams? And it really isn’t just Rowling who opposes this terrible plan. Lots of us do, and did before Rowling spoke up.

On Monday Senator Chandler fired back at Senator Green’s suggestion she too was a “transphobe”, and called on Labor leader Anthony Albanese to say whether he agreed with this slur.

“Does he know that unfounded accusations of ‘transphobia’ against women like JK Rowling have been used to justify appalling abuse and threats of violence against women on social media?,” Senator Chandler asked in a media statement.

In the UK and US, women speaking up for their sex-based rights against trans activist demands have lost jobs, been sent death threats and abused and harassed online.

Last week in the Senate, Senator Chandler said: “So many women have contacted me with concerns about this issue (of trans activist claims on female sport) but they are worried that if they speak publicly, or even internally, they might face consequences at their club or at their work.

…

On Wednesday in the chamber, Senator Chandler returned to the 2019 trans-inclusion document from Sport Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission, which urges more than 16,000 sporting clubs covering nine million players to reorganise on the basis of self-identified “gender identity”, and not biological sex, as much as possible.

She said the chief executives of major sports had “completely taken leave of their senses” in going along with this.

“Full-contact sports (such as Rugby Australia, the AFL and ARL) have taken the position that women in their competitions had better brace themselves for a 30 per cent increase in their risk of injury so that administrators can pat themselves on the back for being inclusive.”

Being “inclusive” isn’t invariably the goal. It’s a stupid word and everyone should stop using it, because it depends. Democrats don’t have to be “inclusive” of Republicans, and vice versa. Tennis players don’t have to be “inclusive” of golfers. Bird watchers don’t have to be “inclusive” of hunters. We’re allowed to have our own interests and our own reality, and we don’t have to deny or suppress either one for the sake of being more “inclusive.” There are illegitimate reasons for excluding people from public spaces – women are well aware of this fact, believe me – but that doesn’t mean everything has to be inclusive of everyone regardless of particulars.

News about news about news:

Divvi De Vendre, a candidate running in the federal election, says an article about her in the Daily Telegraph was inaccurate and a “put down” of her and her party.

The Daily Telegraph published an article on Thursday claiming a Sydney lawyer and writer named Anna Kerr had been “silenced” when a paragraph of a column she wrote for women’s media website Women’s Agenda, which detailed De Vendre’s identity as a “transgender woman”, was cut.

This is confusing stuff. What’s interesting about it is that Australia has a new party, called the Women’s Party, that was registered in February 2019. The punchline is that it was set up by this person Divvi De Vendre, who is a trans woman.

It’s my view that trans women should not do things like this. Ever. They should not put themselves forward to run things that are for women – parties, campaigns, lists, contests, you name it. It’s domineering and intrusive and just rude, for male people who Identify As women to take over women’s organizations and parties and movements.

Meanwhile De Vendre doesn’t like being called a trans woman.

But De Vendre said she “objects” to being called a transgender woman as “it implies someone who is still transitioning to female”.

“I am a woman physically and mentally,” she said. “The taxation department says I’m a woman, my passport says that I’m a woman, my doctors say that I am a woman.”

Because the system has been rigged to force them to “say” that, but that doesn’t make it true.

“I’ve been fully transitioned for three years now,” De Vendre said. “I am a woman physically, mentally and my hormone base is estrogen.”

So move over, bitches, he’s taking the reins.

De Vendre said it wasn’t just a “put down” of her but of her micro-party, which is running candidates in two seats this election.

“This is a put down of the Women’s Party and the Women’s Party is not about me, it’s about women,” she said.

Right, so go away and leave women alone.

About Women’s Agenda removing the paragraph that said De Vendre is trans –

Women’s Agenda publisher Tarla Lambert said she made the call to take out the paragraph.

“I was worried about the implications of it and how it could be construed as insensitive to the trans community,” Lambert told BuzzFeed News.

“I acknowledge that it is a complex debate but as a publication we err on the side of sensitivity toward minorities and we are not apologetic about that.”

Minorities? At the expense of women? So they err on the side of sensitivity toward a tiny number of men at the expense of women, ignoring the power imbalance between men and women? They should be apologetic about that.

“I love being a bloody woman for God’s sake,” [De Vendre] said. “The most important thing you can be in your life is who you are authentically.”

“Authentically,” which apparently means the opposite of “literally.” There are the dull this-world facts, and then there is Authentically, which is whatever we enjoy thinking about ourselves. I’m Authentically 10 feet tall and swift as a cheetah and fierce as an eagle. Aren’t we all.

Trump is telling people to commit voter fraud now.

President Donald Trump during a trip to North Carolina on Wednesday appeared to encourage voters to try to vote twice to make sure the system is working properly.

His remarks came following a question from a WECT reporter about absentee voting in the state.

“They’ll go out and vote and they’re going to have to go check their vote by going to the poll and voting that way,” Trump said. “Let them send it in and let them go vote and if the system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote. If it isn’t calculated, they’ll be able to vote. So that’s the way it is and that’s what they should do.”

They are not going to have to go check their vote by going to the poll and voting that way. The way to check it is by tracking it online. That has the advantage of NOT BEING A FEDERAL CRIME.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections website says that if someone has voted by absentee ballot and then shows up to vote in person, the check-in system will alert the poll worker that the person has already voted.

Duh.

Voting more than once in an election is a form of voter fraud and a federal offense.

But Trump said people had to do that.

He should be tied up and taken away in an unwashed fish-hauling truck bound for Tierra del Fuego.

No, really, it could totally happen. Just the way it could totally happen that a giant rabbit could come down the chimney and carry little Susie away if you make her take her nap right now.

It’s a matter of logic that people could send fake ballots.

That’s nice, but it’s an empirical question whether people could successfully do that or not, and it seems pretty damn unlikely given the many layers of protection there are. Your ballot has a specific number and it goes with your address and your signature and other particulars. You can’t just find a ballot and copy it and then send it in: that won’t work.

Bill Barr says it’s all fiction.

Attorney General Bill Barr denied Wednesday that there are “two justice systems” for Black and white people in the U.S., claiming in a wide-ranging interview on CNN that the idea that there is an “epidemic” of police shooting unarmed Black men is “simply a false narrative.”

How many would it take to be an epidemic? How many is too many? What’s the right number?

Barr acknowledged that there is a “widespread phenomenon” of Black men being treated with “extra suspicion” and “maybe not being given the benefit of the doubt” by police officers, but he denied that this is the product of “systemic racism.” A number of other Trump Cabinet officials and the president himself have denied that there is systemic racism in policing.

Gee, I would think that would be the definition of systemic racism. Does he think it’s haphazard racism? How would that work?

“I did say that I do think that there appears to be a phenomenon in the country where African Americans feel that they’re treated, when they’re stopped by police, frequently, as suspects before they are treated as citizens,” Barr said.

Weaselly piece of crap. That’s “I’m sorry you’re offended.” It’s not a phenomenon of how African Americans feel they are treated, it’s how they are treated.

William Barr doesn’t have to care about that, because it’s not going to take him or one of his kids.

Who knew that singing with a bunch of people in a small enclosed space could spread the virus? Besides everyone who is paying attention at all?

The number of COVID-19 cases connected to a karaoke bar in Quebec City has grown to more than 30, public health authorities say, contributing to a jump in new cases in the region not seen since May.

Sigh. A karaoke bar ffs!

Quebec Health Minister Christian Dubé confirmed on Tuesday that 12 more cases had been linked to Bar Kirouac, in the city’s Saint-Sauveur district.  Dubé said video taken at the bar recently has been circulating on social media, and he suggested that patrons and staff could be fined. 

Because: small space; enclosed space; bunch of people; singing.

Singing spreads the aerosol. You don’t want to be near people who are coughing or sneezing, or shouting or laughing or singing.

“We’re talking about karaoke where people who think that, because they are friends who know each other well, they can let their guard down: take off the mask, pass the microphone, get close together to sing. This is all very nice, but we can’t do it anymore.”

It’s all very nice in the absence of a pandemic spread via aerosols.

The first case connected to Bar Kirouac was reported to local public health authorities on Saturday morning. By Monday, 17 cases among clients and staff had been diagnosed. As of Tuesday evening, 31 cases have been linked to the bar.

Do your karaoke on Zoom for now.

It was novichok.

Angela Merkel has demanded answers from the Kremlin over the “attempted murder” of the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, after toxicological exams at Berlin’s Charité hospital indicated “unequivocally” that Navalny was poisoned with a nerve agent from the novichok family.

At first it seems odd that they use a poison that will scream RUSSIA when it’s detected – and then you remember that it’s an instrument of terror, and it no longer seems odd. Putin is just saying, as publicly as anyone could wish, “I can kill you whenever I feel like it.”

The discovery that novichok was used on Navalny will lead many to conclude that the attack was meant as a brazen message to critics of the Kremlin, and Navalny’s associates quickly pointed the finger at Putin.

“Choosing novichok to poison Navalny in 2020 is basically the same thing as leaving an autograph at the scene of the crime,” wrote Navalny’s associate Leonid Volkov on Twitter, appending an image of Putin’s autograph to the tweet.

Or a 20 foot billboard.

Some academics are angry that male people won’t be allowed to play on women’s rugby teams.

World Rugby’s proposals to ban trans women from playing women’s rugby have been criticised by dozens of academics, who have written to the sport’s governing body to insist there is “no evidence” that trans women pose a safety risk to others playing the sport.

One, that’s absurd, but two, it’s beside the point. Women and men are physically different in many ways, and that’s why they compete mostly on separate teams. Trans women are physically men, so they should not force themselves onto women’s teams.

The letter, which has been co-signed by 84 leading academics from a range of fields including sport, public health and sociology, also questions the science behind the proposed ban and warns it will discriminate against vulnerable people.

Women are vulnerable people. Women as a group are vulnerable to men as a group. Trans women are socially vulnerable in many ways, but they are not physically vulnerable to women in the way women are physically vulnerable to men. Forcing women to accept men who identify as trans in their sports would discriminate against vulnerable people. It’s bizarre how quickly all these “academics” have lost sight of the vulnerability of women to male physical dominance.

“We are opposed to World Rugby’s proposed ban of an entire population group from playing women’s rugby: non-binary people assumed male at birth and transgender women,” it says. “There is no peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to justify a ban which would only be harmful to trans and gender diverse people.”

Who said anything about banning “non-binary” people? Anyone? Surely women who call themselves “non-binary” are not banned from women’s rugby? It’s only men, whether trans or “non-binary,” who are banned from women’s rugby. And there’s no such thing as “assumed male at birth.”

However, World Rugby has issued a robust defence of the research on which its recommendations are based, as well as its application of that research, which has concluded there is a minimum of 20% to 30% increase in injury risk factors when typical male-bodied and female-bodied players are involved in tackles – even when trans women suppress their testosterone in line with International Olympic Committee rules.

I wonder if any of these 84 academics have female children. If so I wonder how many of them would genuinely feel perfectly happy for their daughters to play rugby on teams that include men who identify as trans women.

What is Red Tent Australia?

The aim of Red Tent Australia is to connect, collaborate and create a community of strong and educated women in a supportive & nurturing environment. Our direction is governed by the need to nurture a symbiotic relationship with the earth. We believe everyone is connected. We believe that the earth needs us to remember our ancestral knowledge & go back to “the old ways.”

It is our goal to connect women with their natural wisdom in all areas of their lives, to initiate and increase their healing.

Well, ick, as far as I’m concerned, but whatever. It’s a thingy for women, and the “red tent” reference is about menstruation, and the need to shun and punish female people for menstruating.

So of course it’s of the greatest importance to start adding men.

Here is a little bit about Emme🌷

Emme has been a member, regular active participant and volunteer in Red Tent circles for nearly 4 years. First at Sydney’s Northern Beaches then at Hornsby. She also has participated in the Sydney North Shore and Central Coast Red Tents.

…

She brings to the Executive Committee her being a representative of these roles and perspectives: member, volunteer, assistant, facilitator, executive committee member and also being from an often marginalised group in society with a desire to assist in enhancing inclusiveness for women of diverse backgrounds.

Diverse backgrounds like being a man! Those diverse backgrounds! Enhance inclusiveness by adding men to women’s groups, because women must never be allowed to have anything just for women. Unless it’s a bad thing, of course – back in the old days women and girls used to be exiled to Red Tents, where they might die of cold or carbon monoxide poisoning or being murdered after rape. No need to add men to that. But now that it’s just about “the need to nurture a symbiotic relationship with the earth” it’s time to add men so that the whole thing won’t be all weak and needy and boring.

There have been some skeptical responses but the nice people in charge of the Facebook group have deleted them all. Welcome aboard Femme Emme!

Trump says nuh uh he DID NOT EITHER have a stroke or a bunch of mini-strokes. We must accept that because he is famous for never lying.

Sadly, #Strokeahontas is trending on Twitter.

Both.

Official White House transcript of Trump remarks on July 31 at a meeting of police organizations:

In cities across the nation, we’ve also seen police officers assaulted with bricks, rocks, bats, Molotov cocktails, frozen bottles of water. Somebody said last night, one of the protesters — I saw it — he said, “It’s only water. How can water hurt you?” Yeah, they don’t say it’s frozen, in a bottle the size of a football. And they throw it at the police. It’s unbelievable. “It’s water.”

And then they have cans of soup. Soup. And they throw the cans of soup. That’s better than a brick because you can’t throw a brick; it’s too heavy. But a can of soup, you can really put some power into that, right?

MR. MCHALE: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: And then, when they get caught, they say, “No, this is soup for my family.” They’re so innocent. “This is soup for my family.” It’s incredible. And you have people coming over with bags of soup — big bags of soup. And they lay it on the ground, and the anarchists take it and they start throwing it at our cops, at our police. And if it hits you, that’s worse than a brick because that’s got force. It’s the perfect size. It’s, like, made perfect.

And when they get caught, they say, “No, this is just soup for my family.” And then the media says, “This is just soup. These people are very, very innocent. They’re innocent people. These are just protesters. Isn’t it wonderful to allow protesting?” No, there’s — and, by the way, the media knows it better than we do. They know what’s going on. I don’t know what’s wrong with them. They’re doing our country a tremendous disservice — I’ll say that.

Three times he said “This is soup for my family.”

I cannot get past this Scary People On a Plane thing. This isn’t some disheveled person on the bus, it’s not even an agitated cousin at the family reunion, this is the president of a heavily armed nation.

Apparently he got it, directly or indirectly, from Facebook.

It’s unsettling, to put it mildly, to think the sitting American president believes there are nefarious forces lurking in “dark shadows,” whom he won’t identify, but whom he sees controlling both a presidential candidate and American streets.

But Trump didn’t stop there.

In an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Trump claimed that “we had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs, wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, with gear and this and that.” He then claimed the matter was “under investigation right now.”

Steve Benen points out certain aspects of that claim that make it especially hard to believe.

I won’t pretend to be an expert in tactical disruptions, but if I were part of a gang of thugs, wouldn’t I try to keep a relatively low profile — especially on a commercial aircraft? Wouldn’t I encourage my fellow thugs to wear different clothes, in order to remain inconspicuous? Wouldn’t I recommend storing my “gear and this and that” until after we arrived at our destination?

Also wouldn’t TSA spot the “gear and this and that” and call security to escort them out of the airport?

The likely explanation for this is that the president saw some weird rumor online months ago, and took it seriously.

The claim about a plane flight matches a viral Facebook post from June 1 that falsely claimed, “At least a dozen males got off the plane in Boise from Seattle, dressed head to toe in black.” The post, by an Emmett, Idaho man, warned residents to “Be ready for attacks downtown and residential areas,” and claimed one passenger had “a tattoo that said Antifa America on his arm.”

Wait a second. Dressed head to toe in black – why is that even worth mentioning?

Ok but he saw it on the internet.

Updating to add Pliny’s latest:

Here he is vouching for the complete and utter truth of his claim about that mysterious plane full of scary people in dark clothes.

See, there was a person on a plane, and there were about six people like that person, and the entire plane filled up with that other kind of people. (Could this possibly be code for white people on the one hand and black people on the other hand? Surely not. Surely surely not.)

The plane filled up with The Looters and The Anarchists and The Rioters, people that were obviously Looking For Trouble, and The Person felt very uncomfterbul on the plane, this would be a person that You Know, so I’ll see whether or not I can get That Person to Speak To You, but this was A Firsthand Account of a Plane going from Washington to Wherever, and I’ll see if I can get that informashun for you, maybe they’ll Speak to You, maybe they won’t.

Well! There’s no arguing with that!

Another lovely glimpse into his id – he sees himself as standing alone in a sea of incompetent stupid people.

Ingraham asks him what he says to people, women in particular, who don’t love his aggressive tone.

He pulls himself up and says a preliminary “Okay,” like, here it comes – “I have to be aggressive, I’m standing here [leans forward a touch] in a sea of incompedent people, stupid people, and violent people, [shake of the head] very violent people –

Ingraham interrupts to say that’s what people don’t like, “stupid people” – Trump says “Well where are we?” and looks to the side and up – “we’re in the White House I see.”

Yes, to our permanent shame, that is where he is.

Completely normal, nothing to see here.

Sounds like a joke but isn’t. That’s actually what he says.

Ingraham: Who do you think is pulling Biden’s strings, is it former Obama people –

Trump: People that you’ve never heard of, people that are in the dark shadows –

Ingraham [cutting in]: What does that mean, that sounds like conspiracy theory, dark shadows, what is that?

Trump: No, people that you haven’t heard of, they’re, they’re people that are on the streets, they’re people that are controlling the streets. [pause, big sniff, sit up straighter, take deep breath to fuel extended fantasy babble] We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend. And in the plane, it was almost completely loaded with [suppresses a belch] with thugs, wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms, with gear and this and that – [shifty look to the side] – they’re on a plane!

Ingraham: Where is this –

Trump: I’ll tellya sometime but its under investigashun right now – but they came from ay [clip ends]

A lunatic is driving this bus and we can’t get him out.

Originally a comment by Claire on Ask Doctor Oz next. (Excuse two guest posts from the same person in one day but if you people will insist on being wantonly informative and clarifying this way it simply can’t be helped.)

Herd immunity. For a pandemic. Fuck.

Herd immunity is a population specific term. Herd immunity is used in humans for very specific reasons. Calculating the vaccination rate required to reduce infections in a population. In a retrospective manner, looking at historical data. Projecting into the future in worse case scenarios and measuring against interventions and their efficacy.

By the time you’re working with populations, they’ve stopped being people and have become mere numbers. Epidemiologists have to remind themselves from time to time that there are people behind the number, but not think about it too often because that way madness lies.

Herd immunity is the worst case scenario in a population that could become immune to the disease over time. This occurs not because people change or the virus changes but because the makeup of the population changes. Most of the people unable to become immune die, those left restrict the virus’ ability to find a human host. Here’s the problem – this virus is zoonotic. It can infect other animals, much in the way that flu does. So achieving extinction is impossible. It can sit there happily mutating in a bird or a mammal of any species – (probably but not exclusively) chickens and pigs, respectively.

Dr Atlas is proposing an attempt to achieve herd immunity through natural selection. Yes, good old fashioned eugenics. Consider the Black Death. That epidemic killed between one and two thirds of the population of Europe. It signaled the end of feudalism and severely limited the genetic pool in people of European ancestry. (We white people are like clones compared with the rest of humanity).

Diseases like the Black Death change societies. I don’t know if Dr Atlas will like the result. Nor will the white supremacists. Battling a disease that can literally almost wipe out a continent’s worth of people is easier the more genetic variation you have. People of African ancestry have the most (it’s the oldest population, older = more time to recombine and mutate DNA). White people have the least. Not because of age exclusively, but because of one epidemic effect 670 years ago. Evolutionarily a blink but in terms of historical impact, it was huge.

Herd immunity assumes the possibility of immunity either natural or through vaccination. If long term immunity cannot be achieved, modern civilization is heading for the biggest transformation since the fall of the Roman empire which plunged European civilization into the Dark Ages or the Great Flood of Gun-Yu which heralded the beginning of dynastic succession in what later became China.

And if long term immunity isn’t possible? We may see the greatest transformation of a civilization you’ve ever seen. A global transformation. The biggest, most beautiful, in history.

Peter Baker on Trump’s Twitter frenzy yesterday…

… embracing fringe conspiracy theories claiming that the coronavirus death toll has been exaggerated and that street protests are actually an organised coup against him.

In a concentrated pre-dawn burst, the President posted or retweeted 89 messages between 5.49am and 8.04am on Sunday on top of 18 the night before. He resumed on Sunday night.

Cool that he has so much free time, as well as so much good sense, discipline, sense of proportion, conscience, dedication…

In the blast of social media messages, Trump also embraced a call to imprison New York Governor Andrew Cuomo; threatened to send federal forces against demonstrators outside the White House; attacked CNN and NPR; embraced a supporter charged with murder; mocked his challenger, former vice-president Joe Biden; and repeatedly assailed Portland’s Democratic mayor Ted Wheeler, even posting the mayor’s office telephone number so that supporters could call, demanding his resignation.

Couldn’t he just get sick right now? Not fatally sick, necessarily, just sick enough that it would make him shut the fuck up? I mean fatally sick would be ideal, but I don’t want to over-demand.

Trump likewise reposted messages asserting that the real death toll from the coronavirus was only about 9000 — nowhere near 183,000 — because the others who died also had other health issues and most were of an advanced age.

“So get this straight — based on the recommendation of doctors Fauci and Birx the US shut down the entire economy based on 9000 American deaths to the China coronavirus,” said the summary of an article by the hard-line conservative website Gateway Pundit that was retweeted by the President, denigrating his own health advisers, Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Deborah Birx.

It’s what psychopaths do.

But Trump also retweeted a message calling for Cuomo to be locked up because of the high death toll from the coronavirus in New York nursing homes earlier in the pandemic. “#KillerCuomo should be in jail,” said the message by actor James Woods, a strong supporter of the President.

Of course he did. He doesn’t have the pedantic obsession with “consistency” that you inside the Beltway reporters and treasoners have.

And the President even “liked” a tweet that offered support for Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old Trump supporter who has been charged with homicide after two demonstrators were shot dead in Kenosha, Wisconsin. “Kyle Rittenhouse is a good example of why I decided to vote for Trump,” the tweet said.

Murderers forevaaaaaaaa!

Originally a comment by Claire on Expertise.

Sigh. Why aren’t people taught risk better in school? I find that many people outside of STEM (and many within it too) just do not understand risk, nor do they understand the difference between the two models

If the probability that a woman is injured in a tackle from a transwoman is 20-30% (as per World Rugby) then the demoninator is the tackle. In Harper’s formulation, it’s more complicated but the answer may not be what she expects.

Let’s propose an imaginary trans woman who had been a short, weedy man and transition made him lose muscle and even bone density to that of a woman’s (unlikely but this is a thought experiment). He’s still going to represent a risk to the women on the field. Because men’s and women’s rugby is played differently. Female physiology means that the style of play involves fewer head-on tackles and shoulder tackles, and more tackles from the side. This actually increases the risk of concussion in women’s rugby.

Add our imaginary transwoman playing in a male style would be unpredictable to the women on the team because she would not attempt tackles (and other maneuvers) in the same way. And if she learns the style, she’s still a risk because biomechanical factors mean that women have a higher rotational speed of their head during a tackle. Rotational speed is very, very bad, as you might imagine. And all the hormones in the world won’t change that. Nice paper here.

So, yes, the number of transwomen on rugby teams is small right now. Currently the top 30 women in women’s rugby average tens to hundreds of tackles per match. Let’s look at Jess Breach at number 30 in the 2018 Sevens – she made only 60 tackles in that entire tournament. If our imaginary trans woman made a similar number of tackles and taking the low end 20% risk per tackle, that means as many as 12 injuries could result from that tournament. And that is assuming one transwoman in the entire tournament.

Those 12 are excess injuries, i.e. the number of additional injuries incurred by having one transwoman in a tournament who made 60 tackles. The number 1 player by tackles in 2018 was Portia Woodman, who made a whopping 215 tackles. You do the math.

So Harper can go take a long walk off a short pier. Claiming that the risk has to be calculated as a function of number of transwomen in a tournament or league is not helpful to her cause because it underlines the disruption just one transwoman makes to injuries resulting from that tournament.

Let’s take a different approach.

One of Donald Trump’s top new medical advisers is urging the White House to embrace a “herd immunity” strategy to combat the coronavirus pandemic. Herd-immunity strategies entail allowing disease to spread through much of the population, thereby building natural immunity to the deadly, highly contagious virus. Basing its reporting on “five people familiar with the discussions,” The Washington Post says the Trump White House has already begun to implement some policies along these lines.

One tiny issue here (along with others) – from what I’ve seen it’s looking as if there is no natural immunity to this virus. People have been getting it again, after recovering the first time.

The approach’s chief proponent is Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist with no background in infectious diseases or epidemiology from Stanford’s conservative Hoover Institution. Atlas has advocated that the United States adopt the Swedish model, which relies on lifting restrictions so that healthy people can build up immunity to the disease rather than limiting social and business interactions to prevent the virus from spreading.

And unhealthy people can die off. Where’s the downside?

There’s been reporting on this for a couple of weeks, but apparently the new bit is “The Washington Post says the Trump White House has already begun to implement some policies along these lines.” It’s also worth repeating though – that Trump’s go-to guy on this does not have the relevant training.

Man who calls himself a woman explains how wrong it is to think men playing on women’s rugby teams would be a danger to women.

“Well, frankly, I think [the leaders of World Rugby] had their minds made up, before they called the meeting,” Harper said. “It would have been nice to have seen a trans woman rugby player there, but I doubt it would have made any difference.”

Would it though? Would it have been nice? Suppose you’re on a committee working out legislation on rape; would it be nice to have a rapist there?

The use of “trans woman” works so well to disguise this absurd “include the aggressors in the conversation” bullshit. It wouldn’t sound so persuasive to say “It would have been nice to have seen a man who wants to play rugby on the women’s team there” – but that of course is in fact what he is saying. If we’re going to talk about rules to keep men from playing on women’s teams, we have to include men who want to play on women’s teams in the discussion – that’s the claim. Stupid, isn’t it.

Harper is very comfortable dismissing the possibility of harm to women.

“This idea of a 20 to 30% risk that they floated out, in increased risk, for trans women tackling cisgender women, this was based on cisgender men tackling cis women, and so, it doesn’t apply to trans women,” said Harper. “I would admit that there is probably some theoretical risk of, as a group, of transwoman tackling cis women. However, just talking about that misses a very important point, and that’s that very few tackles in a match in a tournament in the world are made by transwomen. And if you talk about a percentage increase in risk, you shouldn’t be talking about it in terms of tackles, but rather in terms of of matches or tournaments or leagues. And if we look at it in terms of a match, it’s very seldom the case that there’s even one transwoman on the field.”

So it’s okay because it won’t happen all that often. Cool. So then adults should be allowed to play on children’s teams as long as injuries are rare? An occasional broken neck is fine?

“One of the things that we note in that paper is that if you look cross-sectionally at the data, you can see that the trans women in these groups, prior to starting hormone therapy, have substantially reduced strength and muscularity when compared to cisgender males,” she said. “To understand that, you need to go beyond this idea of hormones and to look at the population of trans women. If you look at trans women as a population group, trans women are far more likely to starve themselves so they can look like models than to build muscle. That’s the population they’re studying as opposed to athletic trans women.”

So…these men who say they are women want to look like models? And play rugby? But on the women’s team? And because they starve themselves to look like models they won’t be a risk to women if they force their way onto the women’s teams?

Weird argument.

Also fatuous, because even a very thin man still has the many male physical advantages that make it unfair for him to play on the women’s team.