Coco wrote:Oh go blow it out your balloon knot.morepork wrote:Coco's first ever post about rugby fuelled by anti-PC outrage.
Classic.
I heard that about you.morepork wrote:Coco wrote:Oh go blow it out your balloon knot.morepork wrote:Coco's first ever post about rugby fuelled by anti-PC outrage.
Classic.
I’d rather mop it up with my beard. If that single tabloid article is really your frame of reference here, then don’t let the door hit you in the balloons on the way out.
Peace
Are you charging me for this professional assessment or is it complimentary? I doubt I can afford your rates as I am a simple blue collar business owner... without a degree or fancy, important capital latters after my name.morepork wrote:Do inconclusive documents often cause you this level of anxiety? You do seem to be, you know, jumping to conclusions.
So a happy medium is not allowing someone to play rugby?Coco wrote:How about this... why not get more information and more of a certainty about hormonal and physical advantages before allowing this to become an experiment we are all watching unfold at the detriment of all of the women, whether they be intersex, trans, or not. The jury is still out on hormone levels, possible physical advantages, and so on. Why is it bigoted to ask for proof? And why are the concerns of non trans females being treated as though they are silly or bigoted? Where is the happy medium and "equality"?Puja wrote:I think you're falling for the logical fallacy that does come up quite a lot when this kind of subject comes up, which is the idea that being able to play in women's sport is a reward worthy of pretending to be a trans woman. As previously discussed, being a trans woman in this society is shit and people just don't do it if they're not genuinely trans - the reward of being able to play a lower level of rugby is just not good enough to balance out the increased risk of murder!Coco wrote:
Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?
Truth and "the truth"... semantics?
I do think the story is scaremongering with very little basis in fact. I wouldn't call it an outright lie (although the Times is hardly without form when it comes to making up a quote from a "source who wanted to remain anonymous") - there probably exists a referee who has an issue with having being called a bigot because they wanted to check a burly woman to see if she was one of those transes that he's read about in the paper* - but it's almost certainly overblown.
As mentioned by Stom, trans women want to be taken for women - they're highly unlikely to be maintaining a man's physique and a full beard (although it's to be noted that if you want electrolysis to make it so the beard never grows again, you have to stop shaving for a certain period, which is one situation where a trans woman might have a beard for a short time) and I do not believe in the slightest that there is an epidemic of burly men posing as women and daring refs to make a deal out of it. Quite apart from anything else, other teams would refuse to play them and there'd be a furore with more evidence than, "an anonymous source said." The fact that the notoriously transphobic Times couldn't find even one rugby team who'd had a problem with playing against a trans man suggests it's something of nothing.
Puja
*On a side note, let's say we invest referees with the power that this article seems to be asking for them to have - that they should be able to investigate female rugby players and decide whether they are female enough or not. 1) How many false positives would that throw up, given that women rugby players are, as a group, more likely to be taller and stronger than the societal average and front row forwards of any gender are likely to be child-scaringly ugly. And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.
I would say it's better to let people just play community rugby, rather than have panic-led legislation about a problem that probably doesn't really exist. I mean, The Times, who have have a long-standing and vitriolic history of campaigning against trans rights, are writing an anti-trans women in rugby article and the best 'evidence' they can find is a ref complaining anonymously that somebody called him a bigot (probably for questioning the femininity of a AFAB prop, given that refs don't have magic trans-detecting powers)? Doesn't sound like amateur, community players at the fun end of the game are battering down the door demanding scientific proof.Coco wrote:How about this... why not get more information and more of a certainty about hormonal and physical advantages before allowing this to become an experiment we are all watching unfold at the detriment of all of the women, whether they be intersex, trans, or not. The jury is still out on hormone levels, possible physical advantages, and so on. Why is it bigoted to ask for proof? And why are the concerns of non trans females being treated as though they are silly or bigoted? Where is the happy medium and "equality"?Puja wrote:I think you're falling for the logical fallacy that does come up quite a lot when this kind of subject comes up, which is the idea that being able to play in women's sport is a reward worthy of pretending to be a trans woman. As previously discussed, being a trans woman in this society is shit and people just don't do it if they're not genuinely trans - the reward of being able to play a lower level of rugby is just not good enough to balance out the increased risk of murder!Coco wrote:
Scaremongering? So youre saying the story is a lie and there are no refs quitting or expressing their concerns for safety of other players, or being stuffed in the bigotry box for trying to do their job?
Truth and "the truth"... semantics?
I do think the story is scaremongering with very little basis in fact. I wouldn't call it an outright lie (although the Times is hardly without form when it comes to making up a quote from a "source who wanted to remain anonymous") - there probably exists a referee who has an issue with having being called a bigot because they wanted to check a burly woman to see if she was one of those transes that he's read about in the paper* - but it's almost certainly overblown.
As mentioned by Stom, trans women want to be taken for women - they're highly unlikely to be maintaining a man's physique and a full beard (although it's to be noted that if you want electrolysis to make it so the beard never grows again, you have to stop shaving for a certain period, which is one situation where a trans woman might have a beard for a short time) and I do not believe in the slightest that there is an epidemic of burly men posing as women and daring refs to make a deal out of it. Quite apart from anything else, other teams would refuse to play them and there'd be a furore with more evidence than, "an anonymous source said." The fact that the notoriously transphobic Times couldn't find even one rugby team who'd had a problem with playing against a trans man suggests it's something of nothing.
Puja
*On a side note, let's say we invest referees with the power that this article seems to be asking for them to have - that they should be able to investigate female rugby players and decide whether they are female enough or not. 1) How many false positives would that throw up, given that women rugby players are, as a group, more likely to be taller and stronger than the societal average and front row forwards of any gender are likely to be child-scaringly ugly. And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.
Sorry, that's Assigned Female At Birth.Mikey Brown wrote:AFAB?
Ever the victim.Coco wrote:Are you charging me for this professional assessment or is it complimentary? I doubt I can afford your rates as I am a simple blue collar business owner... without a degree or fancy, important capital latters after my name.morepork wrote:Do inconclusive documents often cause you this level of anxiety? You do seem to be, you know, jumping to conclusions.
Why? Surely there are other things to consider if considering the gender of an individual? Whereas if you wanted to check someone's sex then looking at their genitalia would be of rather more relevancePuja wrote:And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.
Will you take a check?morepork wrote:Ever the victim.Coco wrote:Are you charging me for this professional assessment or is it complimentary? I doubt I can afford your rates as I am a simple blue collar business owner... without a degree or fancy, important capital latters after my name.morepork wrote:Do inconclusive documents often cause you this level of anxiety? You do seem to be, you know, jumping to conclusions.
That's kinda my point. How is a local ref supposed to be able to judge someone's gender (especially when international athletic federations struggle to define where the binary line falls)? If you say refs get the decision over whether someone's female enough to play, then you run the risk of a mass of false positives, and no matter how good an education and training regime you roll out, you are going to get refs in deepest darkest Somerset who are confused by the whole situation and end up causing a scandal by demanding to check if a burly second row is packing or not.Digby wrote:Why? Surely there are other things to consider if considering the gender of an individual? Whereas if you wanted to check someone's sex then looking at their genitalia would be of rather more relevancePuja wrote:And 2) WHO THINKS GIVING A LOCAL REFEREE THE MANDATE TO CHECK PEOPLE'S GENDER IS A GOOD IDEA?! That's going to end up in someone demanding to look at genitalia and we all know it.
How's that possible at the amateur level?Coco wrote:Genitalia no. Hormone levels yes. Checking for genitalia would be humiliating. Isnt a large part of the argument that genitalia does not conclude how the player identifies?
I don't believe the trans man is playing for the women's team anymore - I think that's a photo with former teammates. That's what I would expect anyway - as you say, a trans man is a man and should play on a men's team.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Btw, apparently the image shows a team which has the trans man with a beard and 2 transwomen. Now if a transwoman is a woman, can someone explain to me why a transman isn't a man? Because it looks horribly like male privilege asserting the right to be whatever it wants to be and to refuse to be denied access anywhere whilst saying fuck you to women.
Last February Minister Byrne said that transgender specific guidelines developed by the World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) and supported by Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI) would provide the framework for the new services being developed by the HSE, which include nine new posts and the development of gender clinics.
However, Professor Donal O’Shea, a consultant endocrinologist at Saint Columcille’s Hospital and one of only two in the country who provides hormone treatment for trans people, told GCN: “We don’t intend to run the service in line with WPATH guidelines. Aligning with them would result in significant harm accruing to those with gender confusion.”
The WPATH guidelines are internationally accepted as best practice. Their current version was updated in 2017 and is used extensively when treating trans people. According to Vanessa Lacey of TENI the guidelines represent the organisation’s “bottom line, as they’re evidence-based” and “people-centred”.
Dr Paul Moran, a liaison psychiatrist who plays a central role in treating people at the Dublin clinic, says the WPATH guidelines “as they apply to assessment and treatment recommendation, are not part of our model of care, are clinically unsafe, and unsuitable for use in a public healthcare gender clinic.”
As I understood it from briefly reading his story, he played with the women while he wasn't yet fully transitioned. The beard was a medical condition unrelated to his hormone levels.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Btw, apparently the image shows a team which has the trans man with a beard and 2 transwomen. Now if a transwoman is a woman, can someone explain to me why a transman isn't a man? Because it looks horribly like male privilege asserting the right to be whatever it wants to be and to refuse to be denied access anywhere whilst saying fuck you to women.
It isnt miniscule to athletes trying to get athletic scholarships and get scouted for bigger and better things. From what pool of amateur players do pro leagues observe and recruit from?Stom wrote:How's that possible at the amateur level?Coco wrote:Genitalia no. Hormone levels yes. Checking for genitalia would be humiliating. Isnt a large part of the argument that genitalia does not conclude how the player identifies?
Again, why all the fuss over what is a minuscule problem?
It's not going to happen in the Pro game because a testosterone level exists.
The beard was a medical condition unrelated to hormones? Im curious to understand more about that interesting tidbit.Stom wrote:As I understood it from briefly reading his story, he played with the women while he wasn't yet fully transitioned. The beard was a medical condition unrelated to his hormone levels.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Btw, apparently the image shows a team which has the trans man with a beard and 2 transwomen. Now if a transwoman is a woman, can someone explain to me why a transman isn't a man? Because it looks horribly like male privilege asserting the right to be whatever it wants to be and to refuse to be denied access anywhere whilst saying fuck you to women.
How does it impact their ability to get a scholarship or get scouted?Coco wrote:It isnt miniscule to athletes trying to get athletic scholarships and get scouted for bigger and better things. From what pool of amateur players do pro leagues observe and recruit from?Stom wrote:How's that possible at the amateur level?Coco wrote:Genitalia no. Hormone levels yes. Checking for genitalia would be humiliating. Isnt a large part of the argument that genitalia does not conclude how the player identifies?
Again, why all the fuss over what is a minuscule problem?
It's not going to happen in the Pro game because a testosterone level exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HypertrichosisCoco wrote:The beard was a medical condition unrelated to hormones? Im curious to understand more about that interesting tidbit.Stom wrote:As I understood it from briefly reading his story, he played with the women while he wasn't yet fully transitioned. The beard was a medical condition unrelated to his hormone levels.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Btw, apparently the image shows a team which has the trans man with a beard and 2 transwomen. Now if a transwoman is a woman, can someone explain to me why a transman isn't a man? Because it looks horribly like male privilege asserting the right to be whatever it wants to be and to refuse to be denied access anywhere whilst saying fuck you to women.
I was going to write out a long drawn out explanation for you but it occured to me that you cannot be serious Stom.Stom wrote:How does it impact their ability to get a scholarship or get scouted?Coco wrote:It isnt miniscule to athletes trying to get athletic scholarships and get scouted for bigger and better things. From what pool of amateur players do pro leagues observe and recruit from?Stom wrote:
How's that possible at the amateur level?
Again, why all the fuss over what is a minuscule problem?
It's not going to happen in the Pro game because a testosterone level exists.
[3][4] The excess growth of hair occurs in areas of the skin with the exception of androgen-dependent hair of the pubic area, face, and axillary regions.Stom wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HypertrichosisCoco wrote:The beard was a medical condition unrelated to hormones? Im curious to understand more about that interesting tidbit.Stom wrote:
As I understood it from briefly reading his story, he played with the women while he wasn't yet fully transitioned. The beard was a medical condition unrelated to his hormone levels.