Transgender - RFU out of line with World Rugby

[morepork]

Maybe they are prepping to be compliant with a World Cup tournament held in Russia.

[Digby]

If it's tiny there's little value to banning anyone it'd also hold there's little value to including anyone. That said like most I don't know how sexed sports catchup to a more mature take on sex and gender

[Donny osmond]

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

No one has been banned from playing rugby.

The evidence World Rugby used is listed at the end of their report I think. Maybe you want to wade thru it before dismissing it?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[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

No one has been banned from playing rugby.

The evidence World Rugby used is listed at the end of their report I think. Maybe you want to wade thru it before dismissing it?

Raggs posted it and I waded through it and responded here: http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... 50#p220889

Is this ruling not World Rugby saying that trans women can't play women's rugby? Is that not a de facto ban?

Puja

[Raggs]

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

No one has been banned from playing rugby.

The evidence World Rugby used is listed at the end of their report I think. Maybe you want to wade thru it before dismissing it?

Raggs posted it and I waded through it and responded here: http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... 50#p220889

Is this ruling not World Rugby saying that trans women can't play women's rugby? Is that not a de facto ban?

Puja

It's saying they can't play international, every local union will make their own laws for the local game.

Taken purely at top level, ignoring the health aspect. Surely it's reasonable to not allow athletes who would easily be stronger/faster than their counterparts?

[Donny osmond]

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

No one has been banned from playing rugby.

The evidence World Rugby used is listed at the end of their report I think. Maybe you want to wade thru it before dismissing it?

Raggs posted it and I waded through it and responded here: http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... 50#p220889

Is this ruling not World Rugby saying that trans women can't play women's rugby? Is that not a de facto ban?

Puja

Getting thru 49 science papers in 2 hours is impressive.

If trans women or trans men want to play rugby, there's nothing stopping them.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

No one has been banned from playing rugby.

The evidence World Rugby used is listed at the end of their report I think. Maybe you want to wade thru it before dismissing it?

Raggs posted it and I waded through it and responded here: http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... 50#p220889

Is this ruling not World Rugby saying that trans women can't play women's rugby? Is that not a de facto ban?

Puja

Getting thru 49 science papers in 2 hours is impressive.

If trans women or trans men want to play rugby, there's nothing stopping them.

I've had this discussion before and the range of science that is available to be drawn from is not large. I've seen a lot of them before.

It's saying they can't play international, every local union will make their own laws for the local game.

Taken purely at top level, ignoring the health aspect. Surely it's reasonable to not allow athletes who would easily be stronger/faster than their counterparts?

This was something that I didn't realise - I thought it was a blanket ruling on rugby rather than just the international game. That is a lot better than I thought and makes me less irate about it. It also removes the apparent conflict between the RFU and World Rugby - the RFU are legislating for the community game.

I think the question is whether those athletes would "easily be stronger/faster than their counterparts". If they are, why isn't international rugby already swamped with trans women? This feels like legislating for a problem that doesn't exist.

I will admit, I am a lot less bothered by it being just international, rather than all rugby as I had thought it was.

Puja

[Stom]

Being sucked in by newspaper clickbait headlines and not by the content...

[Oakboy]

I'm still wondering about having sport divided (labelled?) between 'men's' and 'women's'. Can that categorisation last if there is not even agreement on how the separate categories are defined?

Unless somebody is to be upset (be the subject of bias, unfairness etc.) in the categorisation debate, must sport ultimately have to be simply sport open to all? Is fairness ONLY skill-dependent?

Should a less-skilled (less effective) woman (defined?) be entitled to higher-earning representation than her equal-skilled man (defined?). Should a man who is of (mens) tier 4 rugby standard, say, be unable to earn from playing whereas an equal-effectiveness player in (womens) tier 1 can? Is that not a subject for equality consideration?

I'm not advocating anything, just struggling to understand how 'equality' can mean so many different things.

[Banquo]

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

No one has been banned from playing rugby.

The evidence World Rugby used is listed at the end of their report I think. Maybe you want to wade thru it before dismissing it?

Raggs posted it and I waded through it and responded here: http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... 50#p220889

Is this ruling not World Rugby saying that trans women can't play women's rugby? Is that not a de facto ban?

Puja

The clue was in the opening sentence of the OP

[Digby]

It's saying they can't play international, every local union will make their own laws for the local game.

Taken purely at top level, ignoring the health aspect. Surely it's reasonable to not allow athletes who would easily be stronger/faster than their counterparts?

If you can't have stronger and more powerful athletes at the top level did England win the WC last year?

I asked a 12 year old girl about this last night, and she agreed with both sides of the argument when presented with the case on either side before concluding she didn't know and taking over the lounge to play Minecraft. Essentially it seems much easier to say that's wrong than plotting a path that's acceptable, much like the Paralympics we're struggling with how to qualify people into the right event to allow for meaningful and fair competition, fair meaning many different things to many different people in all this. It's a mess, it's going to stay a mess for the foreseeable future.

For myself I hope we're happy to have the mess rather than try and sweep it under the carpet, and we keep discussing the mess until society is smart enough to have an answer

[Stom]

I'm still wondering about having sport divided (labelled?) between 'men's' and 'women's'. Can that categorisation last if there is not even agreement on how the separate categories are defined?

Unless somebody is to be upset (be the subject of bias, unfairness etc.) in the categorisation debate, must sport ultimately have to be simply sport open to all? Is fairness ONLY skill-dependent?

Should a less-skilled (less effective) woman (defined?) be entitled to higher-earning representation than her equal-skilled man (defined?). Should a man who is of (mens) tier 4 rugby standard, say, be unable to earn from playing whereas an equal-effectiveness player in (womens) tier 1 can? Is that not a subject for equality consideration?

I'm not advocating anything, just struggling to understand how 'equality' can mean so many different things.

That's the entire problem with this ruling from WR.

Equality is not about equality of outcome, it's about equality of opportunity. If a trans person wants to play rugby, they should have the opportunity to do so. AND they should probably also have the opportunity to make it to the top. Because if they are not given that chance, there is no equality of opportunity.

Now, I understand it is a potentially tricky question but a born "woman" who has always considered themselves a woman but who had some genetic makeup that gave her extra size and strength is eligible to play international rugby, yet a born "man" who always considered themselves a woman and had some genetic makeup that made them smaller and more feminine than other men until she became a woman...is not eligible?

That has no basis in reality or in scientific vigor.

And we're talking potentially LARGER numbers of the former than the latter.

Frankly, the labelling of trans people in this way and the fear around them is so goddamn sad. So disappointing.

Especially when you consider the fact a trans person getting to the top of a professional sport is going to be insanely unlikely. So this is just labelling and dehumanising a group of people who don't need any more fucking dehumanising.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

I coach a CB girls team and just before lockdown the transgender issue came up with a girl playing for the opposition in one game apparently being a boy but identifying as a girl. Now we never really questioned it as tbh no-one had a bloody clue how to deal with it. To this day I still dont know if that player was a girl or a boy, if I had to guess just from speaking to them at the end of the game(in a line, shaking hands well done etc etc) he was a boy. A few girls in our team questioned it and swore blind he was a boy knowing him from playing mixed sex rugby in the younger age groups against him. Then Covid 19 reared its ugly head and you know the rest of the story...
Going off on a slight tangent here with people discussing equality, should the ladies be getting paid the same money as the men? Could this not be the way to make the game viable? They're not going to pay women 500K/year so drop the mens money down several notches. Apologies if this last question shouldn't be on this thread and Puja feel free to edit it out if you don't want it side tracked.

[Puja]

Going off on a slight tangent here with people discussing equality, should the ladies be getting paid the same money as the men? Could this not be the way to make the game viable? They're not going to pay women 500K/year so drop the mens money down several notches. Apologies if this last question shouldn't be on this thread and Puja feel free to edit it out if you don't want it side tracked.

Frankly, I think that's probably the least potentially offensive thing anyone's said on this thread, including my posts. You're fine.

Puja

[Stom]

I coach a CB girls team and just before lockdown the transgender issue came up with a girl playing for the opposition in one game apparently being a boy but identifying as a girl. Now we never really questioned it as tbh no-one had a bloody clue how to deal with it. To this day I still dont know if that player was a girl or a boy, if I had to guess just from speaking to them at the end of the game(in a line, shaking hands well done etc etc) he was a boy. A few girls in our team questioned it and swore blind he was a boy knowing him from playing mixed sex rugby in the younger age groups against him. Then Covid 19 reared its ugly head and you know the rest of the story...
Going off on a slight tangent here with people discussing equality, should the ladies be getting paid the same money as the men? Could this not be the way to make the game viable? They're not going to pay women 500K/year so drop the mens money down several notches. Apologies if this last question shouldn't be on this thread and Puja feel free to edit it out if you don't want it side tracked.

That’s the thing, did it impact the game?

On pay, it’s about what the players bring to the employer. The men’s game is watched by more so brings in more money, so the players are paid more. It’s not sexist, it’s economics.

[Raggs]

We are beginning to see trans athletes at the top of some sports now though. Where it's allowed. We're yet to see an exceptionally high level athlete transition though I believe. Though we're seeing lower level elite athletes, make a mark at the top level (the kiwi weightlifter for instance).

Having thought about it more, the issue for me is someone at the top, is likely someone who competed to a good level before their change, and continue to compete after it. This is where the big discrepancies can occur.

At a community level, I have less of an issue in some ways. I'd be put in danger if I tried playing 4-5 divisions above what I'm used to, bigger/stronger/faster etc, all the same complaints. If there were numerous divisions for the women's community game, then transgender women could simply slot in at an appropriate level, and play safely. Equally, a transgender man, would likely have to play at quite a low level but could probably safely compete.

The issue here is that there's not numerous levels to the women's game, but then I suppose that given that, there's already a wide range of physical capabilities in place, and it's probably more dangerous than men's in some ways due to that (that said, the collisions are unlikely to be as high as many men's games, so perhaps not).

So I suppose I agree with the split between world rugby and local unions. World rugby needs to protect the very top, and you do start to open a can of worms if you try to approach it on a case by case basis. Below that however, if there are levels to the community game that can simply place anyone at a more or less appropriate level according to the physical capabilities, then I don't see much of an issue.

[Puja]

We are beginning to see trans athletes at the top of some sports now though. Where it's allowed. We're yet to see an exceptionally high level athlete transition though I believe. Though we're seeing lower level elite athletes, make a mark at the top level (the kiwi weightlifter for instance)

This is not me being a d*ck (I feel like I have to clarify that, cause text doesn't convey tone very well), but have you any examples of this aside from the Kiwi weightlifter? It's a point I hear repeated a lot, but I don't know many actual examples and I'd be interested to learn how big of a problem this is.

I think the rest of your post about people slotting into various levels in the community game is spot on, btw.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

At a community level, I have less of an issue in some ways. I'd be put in danger if I tried playing 4-5 divisions above what I'm used to, bigger/stronger/faster etc, all the same complaints. If there were numerous divisions for the women's community game, then transgender women could simply slot in at an appropriate level, and play safely. Equally, a transgender man, would likely have to play at quite a low level but could probably safely compete.

[Raggs]

We are beginning to see trans athletes at the top of some sports now though. Where it's allowed. We're yet to see an exceptionally high level athlete transition though I believe. Though we're seeing lower level elite athletes, make a mark at the top level (the kiwi weightlifter for instance)

This is not me being a d*ck (I feel like I have to clarify that, cause text doesn't convey tone very well), but have you any examples of this aside from the Kiwi weightlifter? It's a point I hear repeated a lot, but I don't know many actual examples and I'd be interested to learn how big of a problem this is.

I think the rest of your post about people slotting into various levels in the community game is spot on, btw.

Puja

I understand the need to clarify, there was another, but I can't find it now, so checked a few others. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be a dick either, I've a great deal of compassion for people born in the wrong skin, but unfortunately there is a case of the greater good, in some situations I feel. Not everyone can win every time.

Cyclist breaking records: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/12/cha ... ompetitor/ only went professional 2 years ago, so not high level before then

School level sprinters (states though, so still high level stuff): https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -sprinter/

Weightlifter: https://globalnews.ca/news/5274675/tran ... s-a-woman/

Hurdles: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... n-man.html

Someone who's not experienced in the field, just like rugby, isn't suddenly going to become a world beater just because they transitioned, but a high level athlete who transitions, and doesn't just stop training, is not going to lose all the advantage they already have in place, which is what a lot of the studies I've looked at also suggest, that the muscle/strength loss isn't enough to bring it down to a female equivalent.

[Puja]

We are beginning to see trans athletes at the top of some sports now though. Where it's allowed. We're yet to see an exceptionally high level athlete transition though I believe. Though we're seeing lower level elite athletes, make a mark at the top level (the kiwi weightlifter for instance)

This is not me being a d*ck (I feel like I have to clarify that, cause text doesn't convey tone very well), but have you any examples of this aside from the Kiwi weightlifter? It's a point I hear repeated a lot, but I don't know many actual examples and I'd be interested to learn how big of a problem this is.

I think the rest of your post about people slotting into various levels in the community game is spot on, btw.

Puja

I understand the need to clarify, there was another, but I can't find it now, so checked a few others. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be a dick either, I've a great deal of compassion for people born in the wrong skin, but unfortunately there is a case of the greater good, in some situations I feel. Not everyone can win every time.

Cyclist breaking records: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/12/cha ... ompetitor/ only went professional 2 years ago, so not high level before then

School level sprinters (states though, so still high level stuff): https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -sprinter/

Weightlifter: https://globalnews.ca/news/5274675/tran ... s-a-woman/

Hurdles: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... n-man.html

Someone who's not experienced in the field, just like rugby, isn't suddenly going to become a world beater just because they transitioned, but a high level athlete who transitions, and doesn't just stop training, is not going to lose all the advantage they already have in place, which is what a lot of the studies I've looked at also suggest, that the muscle/strength loss isn't enough to bring it down to a female equivalent.

Thank you for those (although not for the sources - some of those websites are just f*cking awful!) - interesting reads. I think the variety there suggests that nobody's got a clue what's happening or how to legislate - the school level sprinters appear to not have any regulation on hormones or set level of transition, just identity (which is clearly nuts), the hurdler is running a slower time on easier hurdles (and with significantly more energy to spend on training due to having dealt with her gender dysphoria) and that's produced as proof by irate coaches that she hasn't lost anything, the weightlifter is being punished for having a penis despite obeying IOC rules (and yet that is one category where I think the research that World Rugby cited is relevant, cause she would have been powerlifting through her transition). It's all a mess.

What the situation needs is actual reliable, specific, unbiased science on the matter. Or society progressing enough that the majority of trans people feel comfortable transitioning early enough that this doesn't make a difference anymore. One or the other. Ooh, look, a flying pig!

Puja

[Digby]

On pay, it’s about what the players bring to the employer. The men’s game is watched by more so brings in more money, so the players are paid more. It’s not sexist, it’s economics.

It is sexist because so much of the supply is the men's game. The women for decades haven't had the media coverage even if they've had a chance to play. If all that's supplied to the consumer is the men's game it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that the men's game is the one with the money and interest.

We're only just starting to correct that position now, and we've made but a tiny baby step, but it's a start.

[Oakboy]

On pay, it’s about what the players bring to the employer. The men’s game is watched by more so brings in more money, so the players are paid more. It’s not sexist, it’s economics.

It is sexist because so much of the supply is the men's game. The women for decades haven't had the media coverage even if they've had a chance to play. If all that's supplied to the consumer is the men's game it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that the men's game is the one with the money and interest.

We're only just starting to correct that position now, and we've made but a tiny baby step, but it's a start.

So (just asking), in that case, does so-called 'equal opportunity' not mean that a woman (who is not as good a player as a man) is/will be entitled to equal opportunity of publicity/earning etc. just because she is a woman?

Or, is the current women's game (as currently defined) capable of competing on equal terms for spectacle and earnings power?

Where does supply and demand really begin and end? When is it unfair/positive discrimination?

Again, I simply don't know what to think.

[Mellsblue]

Haven’t listened to this episode, yet, but it’s normally good quality stuff:

[morepork]

On pay, it’s about what the players bring to the employer. The men’s game is watched by more so brings in more money, so the players are paid more. It’s not sexist, it’s economics.

It is sexist because so much of the supply is the men's game. The women for decades haven't had the media coverage even if they've had a chance to play. If all that's supplied to the consumer is the men's game it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that the men's game is the one with the money and interest.

We're only just starting to correct that position now, and we've made but a tiny baby step, but it's a start.

So (just asking), in that case, does so-called 'equal opportunity' not mean that a woman (who is not as good a player as a man) is/will be entitled to equal opportunity of publicity/earning etc. just because she is a woman?

Or, is the current women's game (as currently defined) capable of competing on equal terms for spectacle and earnings power?

Where does supply and demand really begin and end? When is it unfair/positive discrimination?

Again, I simply don't know what to think.

What a strange way to frame the question. Defining women as "not as good as men".

[Oakboy]

It is sexist because so much of the supply is the men's game. The women for decades haven't had the media coverage even if they've had a chance to play. If all that's supplied to the consumer is the men's game it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that the men's game is the one with the money and interest.

We're only just starting to correct that position now, and we've made but a tiny baby step, but it's a start.

So (just asking), in that case, does so-called 'equal opportunity' not mean that a woman (who is not as good a player as a man) is/will be entitled to equal opportunity of publicity/earning etc. just because she is a woman?

Or, is the current women's game (as currently defined) capable of competing on equal terms for spectacle and earnings power?

Where does supply and demand really begin and end? When is it unfair/positive discrimination?

Again, I simply don't know what to think.

What a strange way to frame the question. Defining women as "not as good as men".

I find everything about the subject strange so feel free to explain.