IRFU decision on Trans players

[Oldschool]

I disagree with you fundamentally. I have never met a woman who was within a street of me in terms of physical power when I was playing J1 rugby. It is absolutely moronic to think that trans women should play against women. RTE interviewed a trans women who plays in the UK about how hurt she is and that she never felt that she was more powerful than non trans. It was only at the end that it was mentioned that she is 54 and only took up rugby 4 years ago!

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Your personal anecdote doesn't prove or disprove anything. I'm sure there are other men out there who have met plenty of women more powerful than them, and even more so if they took testosterone reducing medication.
I see it as not a black and white issue - I don't think all trans women should be banned from playing, but I can see cases where there should restrictions put in place. And I really don't see what's moronic about that

You do realise that taking testosterone reducing medication doesn't just magically make you weak enough to compete fairly with women?

Testosterone reducing medication (TRM) is not for the faint of heart.
The two most common side affects seem to be fatigue and maybe more worrying osteoporosis (not good in a contact sport).
So there is another very important health and safety element to all of this which should be considered carefully by anyone taking TRM.
While it might be a slightly red herring thing to add in, the insurance companies will surely be taking this sort of thing very serious too.

[heno]

Personally (and I'd say I'm in a huge minority on this), I would have removed cisgender classifications from the sport and classified it on the basis of whether a player has or hasn't undergone androgen effected puberty.

I am largely in agreement with the decision but I dont think this will have put the issue to bed for the ages.

Dave's solution is an interesting one. To me clearly the categories of Men and Women or Male and Female are not detailed enough to describe the reality of who people are. So some sort of recategorisation needs to be done.
But the big trap hiding in the long grass here will be someone like Caster Semenya. Shes not trans, but has had a performance benefit from a high level of testosterone during puberty. So if a rugby equivalent came along, ie a woman who through no fault of her own has this performance benefit from testosterone, and a significant power differential over her fellow players, and was allowed to continue playing on a women's team because she was assigned female at birth, I can see the trans community legally making the case that they are also women who through no fault of their own have a performance benefit, power etc but are being excluded.
In that situation do we have to then invent some way of measuring someones power - in a fairly absolute way that cant be gamed by someone not trying, and then instead of mens, we will power category A and instead of womens, we will have power category B. Maybe even categories C, D, E, etc etc for lower leagues.

Its a thorny issue thats not going to go away and I feel the traditionalists who just want everything to stay the same will have to embrace some sort of fundamental change.

[riocard911]

Here's an article, in which the author attempts to deal with the complexities:

https://emmahilton.substack.com/p/sex-d ... -and-women

[Morf]

I am largely in agreement with the decision but I dont think this will have put the issue to bed for the ages.

Dave's solution is an interesting one. To me clearly the categories of Men and Women or Male and Female are not detailed enough to describe the reality of who people are. So some sort of recategorisation needs to be done.
But the big trap hiding in the long grass here will be someone like Caster Semenya. Shes not trans, but has had a performance benefit from a high level of testosterone during puberty. So if a rugby equivalent came along, ie a woman who through no fault of her own has this performance benefit from testosterone, and a significant power differential over her fellow players, and was allowed to continue playing on a women's team because she was assigned female at birth, I can see the trans community legally making the case that they are also women who through no fault of their own have a performance benefit, power etc but are being excluded.
In that situation do we have to then invent some way of measuring someones power - in a fairly absolute way that cant be gamed by someone not trying, and then instead of mens, we will power category A and instead of womens, we will have power category B. Maybe even categories C, D, E, etc etc for lower leagues.

Its a thorny issue thats not going to go away and I feel the traditionalists who just want everything to stay the same will have to embrace some sort of fundamental change.

When you start getting into the weeds about physiological differences e.g. testosterone where do you stop? Age they started hormone therapy? Bone density (rules out the Polynesian contingent of NZ, OZ, etc)? What do we define puberty as?

Trying to thing you can do a better job of redefining things without considerable consideration of the fractal nature of redefinition and unforeseen issues created by making this precedent.

[FLIP]

I am largely in agreement with the decision but I dont think this will have put the issue to bed for the ages.

Dave's solution is an interesting one. To me clearly the categories of Men and Women or Male and Female are not detailed enough to describe the reality of who people are. So some sort of recategorisation needs to be done.
But the big trap hiding in the long grass here will be someone like Caster Semenya. Shes not trans, but has had a performance benefit from a high level of testosterone during puberty. So if a rugby equivalent came along, ie a woman who through no fault of her own has this performance benefit from testosterone, and a significant power differential over her fellow players, and was allowed to continue playing on a women's team because she was assigned female at birth, I can see the trans community legally making the case that they are also women who through no fault of their own have a performance benefit, power etc but are being excluded.
In that situation do we have to then invent some way of measuring someones power - in a fairly absolute way that cant be gamed by someone not trying, and then instead of mens, we will power category A and instead of womens, we will have power category B. Maybe even categories C, D, E, etc etc for lower leagues.

Its a thorny issue thats not going to go away and I feel the traditionalists who just want everything to stay the same will have to embrace some sort of fundamental change.

When you start getting into the weeds about physiological differences e.g. testosterone where do you stop? Age they started hormone therapy? Bone density (rules out the Polynesian contingent of NZ, OZ, etc)? What do we define puberty as?

Trying to thing you can do a better job of redefining things without considerable consideration of the fractal nature of redefinition and unforeseen issues created by making this precedent.

The testosterone levels between male and female athletes naturally overlap. It's also how that testosterone is used. High testosterone females still won't have the advantages that low testosterone males have because of the lack of androgenisation.

Ross Tucker who has a PhD in the field of sports science has a good Twitter thread about this: https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/stat ... cw6yA&s=19

[Morf]

It's always been true and known for those in the field.

It's just politics and fear of putting their head above the parapet that has kept a lot of scientists and sports bureaucrats towing a DEI agenda line.

As their fear of losing jobs/research money/being mobbed on twitter subsides the flip-flopping will go into high gear soon.

[riocard911]

I am largely in agreement with the decision but I dont think this will have put the issue to bed for the ages.

Dave's solution is an interesting one. To me clearly the categories of Men and Women or Male and Female are not detailed enough to describe the reality of who people are. So some sort of recategorisation needs to be done.
But the big trap hiding in the long grass here will be someone like Caster Semenya. Shes not trans, but has had a performance benefit from a high level of testosterone during puberty. So if a rugby equivalent came along, ie a woman who through no fault of her own has this performance benefit from testosterone, and a significant power differential over her fellow players, and was allowed to continue playing on a women's team because she was assigned female at birth, I can see the trans community legally making the case that they are also women who through no fault of their own have a performance benefit, power etc but are being excluded.
In that situation do we have to then invent some way of measuring someones power - in a fairly absolute way that cant be gamed by someone not trying, and then instead of mens, we will power category A and instead of womens, we will have power category B. Maybe even categories C, D, E, etc etc for lower leagues.

Its a thorny issue thats not going to go away and I feel the traditionalists who just want everything to stay the same will have to embrace some sort of fundamental change.

When you start getting into the weeds about physiological differences e.g. testosterone where do you stop? Age they started hormone therapy? Bone density (rules out the Polynesian contingent of NZ, OZ, etc)? What do we define puberty as?

Trying to thing you can do a better job of redefining things without considerable consideration of the fractal nature of redefinition and unforeseen issues created by making this precedent.

The testosterone levels between male and female athletes naturally overlap. It's also how that testosterone is used. High testosterone females still won't have the advantages that low testosterone males have because of the lack of androgenisation.

Ross Tucker who has a PhD in the field of sports science has a good Twitter thread about this: https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/stat ... cw6yA&s=19

That was a good thread, alright. Thanks for posting.