Transgender - RFU out of line with World Rugby

[Oakboy]

World Rugby has said transgender players cannot play in the women's game at the top level. The RFU continues to allow their participation in all lower levels that it controls.

I don't know what to think but some questions occur:

1. Is it such a minority situation that they just should just be banned from the game?
2. Can they justify inclusion on safety grounds? (Imagining a 20 stone 'ex-man's game' lock hitting a women's ruck etc.????)
3. If one takes this to its logical ultimate conclusion, can gender-separate sport continue?
4. OR, should there be multiple gender categories with participation restricted to those categories only?
5. Does the quest for equality compromise health and safety?
6. Is the RFU open to financial compensation claims if injuries occur?


There must be more questions but answers . . . . . . ?

[padprop]

I think we need alot more clarity in world sport, this just exposes a wider problem. My personal opinion would be a protected XX chromosome category where testosterone levels have to be below a certain level. You can then have case to case individuals that warrant discussion, IE, Semenya. Take gender out of it, and just base it on natural features to create a balanced, fair competition.

[16th man]

Everyone needs to be very careful with the language in this thread.

Beyond just being basically respectful and acknowledging this is a difficult question to resolve

[Oakboy]

Yes, I hesitated before posting it. There's no denying that problems abound with the subject though. Ignoring the issues till there is a serious injury is not the way. I am naive about this, I admit, not knowing a single transgender individual. I can only comment theoretically and I hoped someone with practical ecperience would contribute.

[Raggs]

Science shows that even after all the interventions possible, someone who was a man, and is now a woman, is far stronger and more powerful than an equivalently sized woman who was always a woman. Ross Tucker is an interesting sports scientist to follow on twitter, and was one of those who worked on this. It's a massive safety concern basically.

[fivepointer]

I'd certainly endorse Ross Tucker as someone well worth following.

Lot of information here - https://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/gender

[Puja]

I think we need alot more clarity in world sport, this just exposes a wider problem. My personal opinion would be a protected XX chromosome category where testosterone levels have to be below a certain level. You can then have case to case individuals that warrant discussion, IE, Semenya. Take gender out of it, and just base it on natural features to create a balanced, fair competition.

XX chromosomes wouldn't help in the slightest - there's people who have XX chromosomes who have all the hormones and secondary sexual characteristics of men. The IAAF and IOC have been searching for over a hundred years for what the definitive definition of a woman is and have yet to find a satisfactory answer because there is not a single thing in biology that has just two binary characteristics without any overlap and sex is no different. Genitals - there's intersex people and surgeries (plus the great impracticality of requiring inspection of a vagina before being allowed to play sport). Chromosomes - 1.7% of the world's population has chromosomes that don't match their assigned sex (and before you scoff at that number, do you know what your chromosomes are? Have you checked?). Currently they appear to be going with some mish-mash of certain hormones being unacceptable, but then you end up with some women who fit every other criteria for female but have naturally abnormally high testosterone (like Semenya) which raises the question of why we'd punish them and not men who have naturally abnormally high testosterone levels.

The whole thing is a mess of trying to apply a binary template onto a non-binary characteristic and if you've got a 100% definition of female, then I've got several sporting bodies keen to talk to you.

Science shows that even after all the interventions possible, someone who was a man, and is now a woman, is far stronger and more powerful than an equivalently sized woman who was always a woman. Ross Tucker is an interesting sports scientist to follow on twitter, and was one of those who worked on this. It's a massive safety concern basically.

Two problems with this - firstly, the science is incredibly wobbly. It's very, very far from a settled issue because the research is from such poor samples and both sides have misleading results that strangely confirm what they thought in the first place.

Secondly, the difference is not big enough for trans women to be treated as a monolithic bloc. Take Sarah Bern for example (England #3 for anyone who doesn't know - here is a video). She is 5ft7 and 15st, a destructive scrummager and terrifying carrier who bounces people for fun. I am going to assume for the purposes of this conversation that she is a cis woman (although I've never asked her myself) - is she a danger to the women's game? Should she be removed from the game on safety grounds? Is it safe letting her onto the same pitch as a 9 stone scrum-half? And if this is a conversation that we shouldn't even be having because she was assigned female at birth and always has been, then why is she different to a 5ft7 and 15st trans woman (who probably has lower testosterone than her because she's been taking anti-androgens). Or to make it even easier, what about the 9 stone trans scrum-half? Why do they get automatically banned while she's allowed to compete, despite her being a greater 'danger' to opposition than them?


This issue is complicated and the answer is neither "ban them all" nor "let everyone play, regardless." There has to be a nuanced approach taken and, while the "20 stone ex-man's game lock" is an outlier that needs to be taken into account, so is the 9 stone trans scrum-half.

Puja

[Puja]

Everyone needs to be very careful with the language in this thread.

Beyond just being basically respectful and acknowledging this is a difficult question to resolve

Well said - this is the official mod position as well. Remember that, whatever your opinions on sport and sporting categories, outside of rugby trans people are individual people with individual situations, trans women are women, trans men are men, everyone has feelings, and everyone is deserving of respect. Also remember that you do not know anyone's situation here and work on the basis that you might be very easily be talking to someone who is trans.

I am happy to allow this conversation here as I trust you all to do it kindly and sensibly. Please live up to my expectations.

Mod

[padprop]

I think we need alot more clarity in world sport, this just exposes a wider problem. My personal opinion would be a protected XX chromosome category where testosterone levels have to be below a certain level. You can then have case to case individuals that warrant discussion, IE, Semenya. Take gender out of it, and just base it on natural features to create a balanced, fair competition.

XX chromosomes wouldn't help in the slightest - there's people who have XX chromosomes who have all the hormones and secondary sexual characteristics of men. The IAAF and IOC have been searching for over a hundred years for what the definitive definition of a woman is and have yet to find a satisfactory answer because there is not a single thing in biology that has just two binary characteristics without any overlap and sex is no different. Genitals - there's intersex people and surgeries (plus the great impracticality of requiring inspection of a vagina before being allowed to play sport). Chromosomes - 1.7% of the world's population has chromosomes that don't match their assigned sex (and before you scoff at that number, do you know what your chromosomes are? Have you checked?). Currently they appear to be going with some mish-mash of certain hormones being unacceptable, but then you end up with some women who fit every other criteria for female but have naturally abnormally high testosterone (like Semenya) which raises the question of why we'd punish them and not men who have naturally abnormally high testosterone levels.

The whole thing is a mess of trying to apply a binary template onto a non-binary characteristic and if you've got a 100% definition of female, then I've got several sporting bodies keen to talk to you.

Science shows that even after all the interventions possible, someone who was a man, and is now a woman, is far stronger and more powerful than an equivalently sized woman who was always a woman. Ross Tucker is an interesting sports scientist to follow on twitter, and was one of those who worked on this. It's a massive safety concern basically.

Two problems with this - firstly, the science is incredibly wobbly. It's very, very far from a settled issue because the research is from such poor samples and both sides have misleading results that strangely confirm what they thought in the first place.

Secondly, the difference is not big enough for trans women to be treated as a monolithic bloc. Take Sarah Bern for example (England #3 for anyone who doesn't know - here is a video). She is 5ft7 and 15st, a destructive scrummager and terrifying carrier who bounces people for fun. I am going to assume for the purposes of this conversation that she is a cis woman (although I've never asked her myself) - is she a danger to the women's game? Should she be removed from the game on safety grounds? Is it safe letting her onto the same pitch as a 9 stone scrum-half? And if this is a conversation that we shouldn't even be having because she was assigned female at birth and always has been, then why is she different to a 5ft7 and 15st trans woman (who probably has lower testosterone than her because she's been taking anti-androgens). Or to make it even easier, what about the 9 stone trans scrum-half? Why do they get automatically banned while she's allowed to compete, despite her being a greater 'danger' to opposition than them?


This issue is complicated and the answer is neither "ban them all" nor "let everyone play, regardless." There has to be a nuanced approach taken and, while the "20 stone ex-man's game lock" is an outlier that needs to be taken into account, so is the 9 stone trans scrum-half.

Puja

Any real world or sporting examples of this? Genuinely curious as have never encountered this before

[Puja]

XX chromosomes wouldn't help in the slightest - there's people who have XX chromosomes who have all the hormones and secondary sexual characteristics of men.

Any real world or sporting examples of this? Genuinely curious as have never encountered this before

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

It's also not uncommon to have the other way (XY chromosomes that present entirely as women, including uteruses and menstruation) or people with XXY or XXX or X or loads of things. Mother Nature invented drugs just so she could be high on them while inventing everything else.

This is a really good primer (text transcript below for people who don't have time to watch a video): The Way We Think About Biological Sex Is Wrong

Puja

[Raggs]

The science isn't really that wobbly. Strength levels don't just drop down to the equivalent level.

Here's the list of references from the world rugby docs:

Yes, a tighthead prop is strong and destructive, a trans woman with the same build will be even more destructive, potentially massively so.

A problem is also when playing, you adjust for the person you're tackling/running into. If I see a huge guy running at me, I let him go by and take him around the legs. If someone a similar size to me was coming, I'd probably take them on head on, to then be met by 50% more force than I was expecting is very dangerous.

[padprop]

Thank Puja, appreciate that. I definitely agree with you regarding outliers, and I did say as much in my original thread, but would still stand by XX, as it does fit for the vast majority. Obviously, individuals who have the syndrome described in that wikipedia article where they still maintain some of the male genetic code due to chromosomes crossing over would be up for debate.

I’m personally less worried about the safety aspects as I trust world rugby or the RFU would act on individual cases if either the personal safety or others playing would be endangered to an unacceptable degree. We already see this in players being unable to play after losing an eye (in most cases), leg amputees with metal prosthetics etc.

My main concern is in the standard of the game. You look back at the world records set by East German women quite obviously massively abusing performance enhancing drugs and the world records are now unattainable, no one has got within a second of the 400 metre WR in the last 30-40 years. No one watches sport to see somebody completely dominate and that would be the worry I would have if the rules were more all-encompassing at the top level of female sport.

[Puja]

The science isn't really that wobbly. Strength levels don't just drop down to the equivalent level.

Here's the list of references from the world rugby docs:

Have you looked into the scientific rigour behind those references? A long list of references is only good if all of them are based on good scientific method, which is really hard to do as the sample sizes just aren't there and it's nigh impossible to do blind testing.

Yes, a tighthead prop is strong and destructive, a trans woman with the same build will be even more destructive, potentially massively so.

A problem is also when playing, you adjust for the person you're tackling/running into. If I see a huge guy running at me, I let him go by and take him around the legs. If someone a similar size to me was coming, I'd probably take them on head on, to then be met by 50% more force than I was expecting is very dangerous.

You are extrapolating something there which I'm not sure is true, which is that a 5ft7, 15st trans prop will be 50% more powerful than a 5ft7, 15st cis prop. If we take the papers cited as gospel (and that's a big if for me), they are not saying that. They are saying that a trans woman will stand a better chance of being 15st and shaped like Sarah Bern (and thus more powerful than the average woman), not that she would be more powerful than Sarah Bern despite being the same size.

Also, you haven't addressed my point about a blanket ban despite the fact that a large proportion of trans women are not shaped like Sarah Bern (and in fact would find it very hard to be, because they're taking medication which actively suppresses the hormones that would allow them to build muscle). What about my 9st trans scrum half? Do they need to be banned because *all* trans women are dangerous on a rugby pitch?

Puja

[Raggs]

I've had this conversation a while ago, I've not got the energy (especially today ) to go through it all again: Here's Ross Tucker (it's a thread, you'll need to click on the tweet to open it). posting up the most appropriate parts of World Rugby's reasoning, and pretty much all the points you've raised:

[Puja]

Thank Puja, appreciate that. I definitely agree with you regarding outliers, and I did say as much in my original thread, but would still stand by XX, as it does fit for the vast majority. Obviously, individuals who have the syndrome described in that wikipedia article where they still maintain some of the male genetic code due to chromosomes crossing over would be up for debate.

I’m personally less worried about the safety aspects as I trust world rugby or the RFU would act on individual cases if either the personal safety or others playing would be endangered to an unacceptable degree. We already see this in players being unable to play after losing an eye (in most cases), leg amputees with metal prosthetics etc.

My main concern is in the standard of the game. You look back at the world records set by East German women quite obviously massively abusing performance enhancing drugs and the world records are now unattainable, no one has got within a second of the 400 metre WR in the last 30-40 years. No one watches sport to see somebody completely dominate and that would be the worry I would have if the rules were more all-encompassing at the top level of female sport.

The thing is that they're not really outliers. People with DSD (different gender presentation to their chromosomes) are 1.7% of the earth's population - that's the same as natural redheads! And do we have a blood test for everyone who wants to play female sport at every level or only the ones that we think look a bit burly?

I think it's very dangerous to conflate East German woman and drug cheats with trans women, not least because trans women are specifically doing the opposite - they're looking to reduce the hormones that gave the drug cheats their advantage and, in some cases (not all, but some), that reduces their performance below that of an equivalent cis woman. I don't know there is a risk to the top of the game (cause there's been trans women allowed to compete for a long while and there aren't that many at the top level of any sport), but it is something to be kept an eye on to make sure nobody's going to be trying any f*ckery. It is a situation requiring individual evaluation though, not a blanket ban of everyone, not matter how small or crap at rugby they might be.

I agree with you entirely though that neither World Rugby and the RFU are qualified to act on individual cases and I wouldn't trust either of them to cope with a nuanced situation. I think they're both wrong with their current approaches though - "Ban them all" is bad, but so is "Eh, probably fine," which is where the RFU currently are.

Puja

[padprop]

The science isn't really that wobbly. Strength levels don't just drop down to the equivalent level.

Here's the list of references from the world rugby docs:

Have you looked into the scientific rigour behind those references? A long list of references is only good if all of them are based on good scientific method, which is really hard to do as the sample sizes just aren't there and it's nigh impossible to do blind testing.

Yes, a tighthead prop is strong and destructive, a trans woman with the same build will be even more destructive, potentially massively so.

A problem is also when playing, you adjust for the person you're tackling/running into. If I see a huge guy running at me, I let him go by and take him around the legs. If someone a similar size to me was coming, I'd probably take them on head on, to then be met by 50% more force than I was expecting is very dangerous.

You are extrapolating something there which I'm not sure is true, which is that a 5ft7, 15st trans prop will be 50% more powerful than a 5ft7, 15st cis prop. If we take the papers cited as gospel (and that's a big if for me), they are not saying that. They are saying that a trans woman will stand a better chance of being 15st and shaped like Sarah Bern (and thus more powerful than the average woman), not that she would be more powerful than Sarah Bern despite being the same size.

Also, you haven't addressed my point about a blanket ban despite the fact that a large proportion of trans women are not shaped like Sarah Bern (and in fact would find it very hard to be, because they're taking medication which actively suppresses the hormones that would allow them to build muscle). What about my 9st trans scrum half? Do they need to be banned because *all* trans women are dangerous on a rugby pitch?

Puja

Even if the studies are flawed, is the burden of proof not on the studies which are trying to suggest that the male/female differences are less so? If we want to change the way we think about how we reassign sports categories we would need many many high quality studies showing that the differences arent as large as most people believe them to be. Would you be as scrupulous regarding those studies? The 1.7% study for example?

[padprop]

Thank Puja, appreciate that. I definitely agree with you regarding outliers, and I did say as much in my original thread, but would still stand by XX, as it does fit for the vast majority. Obviously, individuals who have the syndrome described in that wikipedia article where they still maintain some of the male genetic code due to chromosomes crossing over would be up for debate.

I’m personally less worried about the safety aspects as I trust world rugby or the RFU would act on individual cases if either the personal safety or others playing would be endangered to an unacceptable degree. We already see this in players being unable to play after losing an eye (in most cases), leg amputees with metal prosthetics etc.

My main concern is in the standard of the game. You look back at the world records set by East German women quite obviously massively abusing performance enhancing drugs and the world records are now unattainable, no one has got within a second of the 400 metre WR in the last 30-40 years. No one watches sport to see somebody completely dominate and that would be the worry I would have if the rules were more all-encompassing at the top level of female sport.

The thing is that they're not really outliers. People with DSD (different gender presentation to their chromosomes) are 1.7% of the earth's population - that's the same as natural redheads! And do we have a blood test for everyone who wants to play female sport at every level or only the ones that we think look a bit burly?

I think it's very dangerous to conflate East German woman and drug cheats with trans women, not least because trans women are specifically doing the opposite - they're looking to reduce the hormones that gave the drug cheats their advantage and, in some cases (not all, but some), that reduces their performance below that of an equivalent cis woman. I don't know there is a risk to the top of the game (cause there's been trans women allowed to compete for a long while and there aren't that many at the top level of any sport), but it is something to be kept an eye on to make sure nobody's going to be trying any f*ckery. It is a situation requiring individual evaluation though, not a blanket ban of everyone, not matter how small or crap at rugby they might be.

I agree with you entirely though that neither World Rugby and the RFU are qualified to act on individual cases and I wouldn't trust either of them to cope with a nuanced situation. I think they're both wrong with their current approaches though - "Ban them all" is bad, but so is "Eh, probably fine," which is where the RFU currently are.

Puja

If thats the way you wish to interperate that then fine. My point is that both are examples of male physiology giving women an advantage in women/catergorized sport. I personally wouldnt use Strawman arguments such as the 20 stone trans second rowers or the 9 stone trans scrum half. Its averages for me. If we can agree under 16 rugby players shouldnt be playing against under 20 rugby players because of different physical phenomena, whats makes the argument that regarding a different measurable (chromosomes) characteristic so different?

[Puja]

The science isn't really that wobbly. Strength levels don't just drop down to the equivalent level.

Here's the list of references from the world rugby docs:

Have you looked into the scientific rigour behind those references? A long list of references is only good if all of them are based on good scientific method, which is really hard to do as the sample sizes just aren't there and it's nigh impossible to do blind testing.

Yes, a tighthead prop is strong and destructive, a trans woman with the same build will be even more destructive, potentially massively so.

A problem is also when playing, you adjust for the person you're tackling/running into. If I see a huge guy running at me, I let him go by and take him around the legs. If someone a similar size to me was coming, I'd probably take them on head on, to then be met by 50% more force than I was expecting is very dangerous.

You are extrapolating something there which I'm not sure is true, which is that a 5ft7, 15st trans prop will be 50% more powerful than a 5ft7, 15st cis prop. If we take the papers cited as gospel (and that's a big if for me), they are not saying that. They are saying that a trans woman will stand a better chance of being 15st and shaped like Sarah Bern (and thus more powerful than the average woman), not that she would be more powerful than Sarah Bern despite being the same size.

Also, you haven't addressed my point about a blanket ban despite the fact that a large proportion of trans women are not shaped like Sarah Bern (and in fact would find it very hard to be, because they're taking medication which actively suppresses the hormones that would allow them to build muscle). What about my 9st trans scrum half? Do they need to be banned because *all* trans women are dangerous on a rugby pitch?

Puja

Even if the studies are flawed, is the burden of proof not on the studies which are trying to suggest that the male/female differences are less so? If we want to change the way we think about how we reassign sports categories we would need many many high quality studies showing that the differences arent as large as most people believe them to be. Would you be as scrupulous regarding those studies? The 1.7% study for example?

The issue is that this change is "changing the way we think about how we reassign sports categories." Previous to this, trans women were able to compete at any level of rugby, anywhere in the world. The top level of the game had not been taken over by trans rugby players. Women's rugby wasn't overwhelmed with injuries from playing with and against trans women. None of the scaremongering that people throw up had actually come to pass. This action by World Rugby is the change and I would like to see reliable evidence before banning a whole group of people from playing sport based on a hypothetical danger that hasn't shown up yet.

I've had this conversation a while ago, I've not got the energy (especially today ) to go through it all again: Here's Ross Tucker (it's a thread, you'll need to click on the tweet to open it). posting up the most appropriate parts of World Rugby's reasoning, and pretty much all the points you've raised:

Thanks for the link - I have had a read through it and looked at some of the studies cited. I can spot some possible flaws in them just from a quick glance:

- they cite punching strength difference between men and women without controlling for the fact that men are socialised to learn how to throw a punch and it's a rare girl that grew up playing at being Rocky or Lennox Lewis
- they cite male vs female speed without controlling for height
- they acknowledge that they don't take into account any athletes and these are generic population figures
- they use data from men who are suffering from prostate cancer (and thus have reduced testosterone) as a proxy for data on trans women, which is not the same thing. Not least because the study they're taking data from is specifically about attempting to maintain muscle mass through a reduced testosterone period, which is not what trans women do! They're not taking anti-androgens and then hitting heavy bodybuilding workouts to maintain their broad shoulders and v-shaped backs! In fact, he brings up that trans women who trained muscles before their transition could return to their higher level more easily, ignoring the fact that most trans women would not have done bodybuilding before their transition because bodybuilding is traditionally a male-coded activity and trans women don't tend to like doing male-coded activities even before they transition because they're rebelling against society recognising them as male (admittedly there are also some who do through themselve into being as "male" as possible in an attempt to bury their feelings, but they are in the minority).

Granted, he does address some of my points in the thread below, but he does so with the assumption that trans women are trying to game the system. Using data from heavy-bodybuilding during a low-testosterone period is specious because trans women don't look to gain muscle during transition - they're trying to look more feminine, that's the idea. He's proven that someone *could* transition and keep their male physique, while ignoring that nobody *would*. Okay, there's probably a Russian club out there with plans for transitioning players in time for the 2025 WRWC, but that's not the regular trans experience.

They're banning a whole group of people, the vast majority of whom pose absolutely no threat to women on a rugby pitch whatsoever and who are likely pretty average at the sport, because of concerns about "What could happen" that actually hasn't yet happened. I am in favour of keeping the sport safe. I'm not in favour of banning a whole group of people, without differentiation, most of whom are not an issue at all, because some of them *might* be a problem.

Puja

[Puja]

I think it's very dangerous to conflate East German woman and drug cheats with trans women, not least because trans women are specifically doing the opposite - they're looking to reduce the hormones that gave the drug cheats their advantage and, in some cases (not all, but some), that reduces their performance below that of an equivalent cis woman. I don't know there is a risk to the top of the game (cause there's been trans women allowed to compete for a long while and there aren't that many at the top level of any sport), but it is something to be kept an eye on to make sure nobody's going to be trying any f*ckery. It is a situation requiring individual evaluation though, not a blanket ban of everyone, not matter how small or crap at rugby they might be.

I agree with you entirely though that neither World Rugby and the RFU are qualified to act on individual cases and I wouldn't trust either of them to cope with a nuanced situation. I think they're both wrong with their current approaches though - "Ban them all" is bad, but so is "Eh, probably fine," which is where the RFU currently are.

Puja

If thats the way you wish to interperate that then fine. My point is that both are examples of male physiology giving women an advantage in women/catergorized sport. I personally wouldnt use Strawman arguments such as the 20 stone trans second rowers or the 9 stone trans scrum half. Its averages for me. If we can agree under 16 rugby players shouldnt be playing against under 20 rugby players because of different physical phenomena, whats makes the argument that regarding a different measurable (chromosomes) characteristic so different?

Apologies; I didn't mean to misinterpret you.

I agree that we should have different categories for men's sport and women's sport, but I disagree that chromosomes are the way to measure it. This is not only because of the sizeable minority of intersex people for whom their chromosomes don't match their societal appearance - which group would you put someone whose chromosomes are XXY, for example? - but because I don't see why someone who was assigned male at birth and is now female in everything they do, should be automatically banned from playing sport regardless of their situation. You are right that the 20st/9st strawman extremes aren't that helpful in the discussion, but what about the 13st slightly overweight prop who's never seen the inside of a gym and just likes a trundle every Saturday? World Rugby's restrictions aren't just about the elite game, they're also about the community game and I don't see why *every* trans rugby player is now to be banned, no matter how crap they are at rugby.

I just don't see a blanket approach as being right for anything. It's a nuanced situation and it needs a nuanced response.

And, on that note, I shall leave it there. I will be keeping an eye in a mod capacity, so play nicely all, but I think I should probably pause my own posting for the moment.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Just my quick thoughts - more on the discussion than the actual subject matter.
I don't feel informed enough to make any particularly sensible comments on this subject beyond agreeing with Puja that it's a hell of a complicated subject with no "right" answer; but an awful lot of "wrong" ones - including any and all blanket statements.

Most importantly, long lists of references depend not only on each reference being high quality, valid and applicable; but also balanced.
If it's a reference list used to make a point, then you bet your arse that an informed person making a counter-point will have just as long a list of references.

If the length of the reference list was a measure of the validity of the argument, then Wikipedia (hyperbolically) becomes the worlds most reliable source of accurate information. No-one should be impressed by the size of your reference list.

[padprop]

Appreciate the discussion Puja, agree with you regarding the need for nuance, we just seem to differ on what that nuance is and how far it goes

[morepork]

There don't seem to be any studies dealing specifically with the actual incidence and severity of injuries suffered by players in comps that have trans people participating. Something akin to the analyses of head trauma associated with tackling/being tackled/being taken out in the air etc. You would think that would be the obvious starting point if this decision is actually data driven?

[Raggs]

There don't seem to be any studies dealing specifically with the actual incidence and severity of injuries suffered by players in comps that have trans people participating. Something akin to the analyses of head trauma associated with tackling/being tackled/being taken out in the air etc. You would think that would be the obvious starting point if this decision is actually data driven?

There just isn't much data like that though. It would be such a tiny pool as to not be worthwhile anyway.

You can look up strength related studies however, there's lots, including those with hundreds of participants. And strength and speed etc, can give a fair idea of how much power will be involved in collisions.

[morepork]

There don't seem to be any studies dealing specifically with the actual incidence and severity of injuries suffered by players in comps that have trans people participating. Something akin to the analyses of head trauma associated with tackling/being tackled/being taken out in the air etc. You would think that would be the obvious starting point if this decision is actually data driven?

There just isn't much data like that though. It would be such a tiny pool as to not be worthwhile anyway.

You can look up strength related studies however, there's lots, including those with hundreds of participants. And strength and speed etc, can give a fair idea of how much power will be involved in collisions.

Be nice to see some data fit the hypothesis though. I'm not seeing an acute need for this ban tbh.

[Puja]

There don't seem to be any studies dealing specifically with the actual incidence and severity of injuries suffered by players in comps that have trans people participating. Something akin to the analyses of head trauma associated with tackling/being tackled/being taken out in the air etc. You would think that would be the obvious starting point if this decision is actually data driven?

There just isn't much data like that though. It would be such a tiny pool as to not be worthwhile anyway.

You can look up strength related studies however, there's lots, including those with hundreds of participants. And strength and speed etc, can give a fair idea of how much power will be involved in collisions.

Given it's a tiny pool that doesn't appear to be having a big enough effect to be measured, you wonder what the point of banning them is. Apart from appeasing Sharron Davies, of course.

Puja