|
drunk leprechaun posted:Actual scientists say... World Rugby aren't ignoring this, they are saying it has been superseded by further research into the effects on the body of reducing testosterone levels that show that the inherent biological advantage isn't reduced as much as originally thought. Especially in the areas of muscle mass and strength. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0226/v1 Taking emotion out of it, it isn't bigotry to change policy to reflect the information you have with regards to safety and if the information changes I would expect WR to change policy to reflect. But yes, it feels a bit lovely especially because Rugby has always prided itself on being a game for everyone of all shapes and sizes.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2020 14:18 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 20:48 |
|
turntabler posted:Wallabies are gonna beat the all blacks at Eden Park this weekend. What actually happened to NZ in the last game? I watched quite a bit of super rugby aotearoa and most of those teams looked like they could have beaten the NZ that ran on to the pitch against the wallabies.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2020 14:37 |
|
Seksiness posted:World Rugby aren't ignoring this, they are saying it has been superseded by further research into the effects on the body of reducing testosterone levels that show that the inherent biological advantage isn't reduced as much as originally thought. Especially in the areas of muscle mass and strength. The problem with the research is that it is entirely hypothetical, there is almost no practical, in the field analysis on the issue in rugby. As for taking emotion out of the equation, WR also included an openly transphobic pressure group, run by someone that thinks trans girls in the Girl Guides is a danger to women, on the panel to decide if trans people could be allowed to compete. It was barely a level playing field from the start. Every single thermonuclear hot take on this issue seems to think that any trans player would be some sort of 6'6" 20st man who just decided to call themselves a woman when there are no instances of this happening at any level in rugby. The entire thing seems to be predicated either on trans panic in sports or for WR to insure themselves against a future lawsuit if someone was injured playing in a game against a trans player and decided to sue.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2020 16:41 |
|
Smorgasbord posted:I absolutely did not make any such point, gently caress off with this bullshit. Not engaging with my point at all there? I think it's easy for me to be confused when you say poo poo like quote:There isn't even a transition there she is a biological male in a sports bra clowning on biological girls Maybe that explains why people think you're a loving moron? But still to engage more, you think its safe for women to play against women literally twice their size but wildly dangerous for them to compete against transwomen?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2020 17:03 |
|
Vaders Jester posted:The problem with the research is that it is entirely hypothetical, there is almost no practical, in the field analysis on the issue in rugby. As for taking emotion out of the equation, WR also included an openly transphobic pressure group, run by someone that thinks trans girls in the Girl Guides is a danger to women, on the panel to decide if trans people could be allowed to compete. It was barely a level playing field from the start. Yes exactly. Based on who they included it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that they used some science for window dressing. Also they don't account for how often these potential interactions even happen. What is the participation rate for trans women at any level of rugby, let along the highest level? Trans individuals represent 0.6% of the population, and given how aggressively they are marginalized by society I bet the participation rates for sports to be a lot lower. But even if we double to 1.2% participation this is one trans woman for every 6-7 starting XV. So in the women Six Nations that is one person. One. So the "20-30% injury chance increase" is actually far far lower. Let's say that we take that same study and apply it across racial groups. Maybe we find that injuries are 20-30% higher when playing polynesian teams. Should they be banned? What about if the results say that black South Africans "increase the injury risk" of opponents? What if it's the English? Or the Welsh? I know in American sports that there are teams who it is known have a higher injury rate in their opponents than the average. Sometimes a lot higher. Should we ban those teams and deal with it that way? Again this decision doesn't even weigh the "increased injury risk" against the damage done to trans women who just want to play rugby and find that community that we love to hold up. This decision strikes me as being similar to a lot of eugenics and scientific racism bullshit in the early 1900's. It's just that trans individuals are now the target. That's why I will continue to call this bigotry. Becasue that is plainly what it is. drunk leprechaun fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 15, 2020 |
# ? Oct 15, 2020 17:22 |
|
I also agree the English should be banned.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2020 23:47 |
|
drunk leprechaun posted:Actually it is 100% your job to provide evidence to back up your claims. That's how discourse works. Apparently telling you where to find it wasn't enough for you so just start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports there are a ton of sources to get you started, they are summarised in the entry under the heading "Testosterone, athletic ability and injury risks" copied below. Males at every percentile are stronger, taller, denser bones, greater lung capacity etc etc etc. Hormone treatment while gradually reducing some of that differential over time does not and cannot remove those across the board advantages that are the whole damned reason there are separate categories for men and women in sport. I don't think the fact that the recent increase in transgenderism hasn't had enough time to filter through to dominating olympic podiums yet is a reason not to take sensible actions to protect biological women's interests given the clear science on this. This whole thing is ideology vs science. Given the obvious (and backed by science) disparities across the board why shouldn't there be a third category for transwomen, or simply a biological women's category and an open-entry category? quote:There is ongoing debate over the impact of biological sex differences in humans on sports abilities. People who oppose transgender women competing in women's sports say that they are given an unfair advantage over cisgender women due to higher testosterone levels and different muscle and fat distribution. Testosterone regulates many different functions in the body, including the maintenance of bone and muscle mass.[22] It is also argued that athletes who transition to a woman after puberty will have a greater muscle-to-fat ratio compared to female athletes.[6] A September 2019 study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm found that a year of hormone therapy decreased muscle mass in transgender women only modestly.[23]
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 00:04 |
|
Aramoro posted:Not engaging with my point at all there? I think it's easy for me to be confused when you say poo poo like If you disagree with me then explain why, I'm not going to respond to insults or mischaracterisations. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 00:09 |
|
hooman posted:What actually happened to NZ in the last game? I watched quite a bit of super rugby aotearoa and most of those teams looked like they could have beaten the NZ that ran on to the pitch against the wallabies. I am a pretty casual fan but I just read it as two teams in transition ran into each other, and the all blacks were overconfident in not expecting the wallabies to be as confident and (fairly) competent as they were.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 02:46 |
|
Old mate is really arguing in circles here (or more likely, in bad faith) Regarding Fairness IF transwomen do have a physical advantage over ciswomen (and it appears there is no significant science to confirm or deny this) then I can see the issue being relevant in individual sports such as track and field or tennis. I don't see how this can be an issue on the rugby field? In a team sport, with 15 players a side, there are always going to be a number of players who are bigger than others. As other posters have alluded to, rugby's strength has been it's inclusiveness. I think this extends to having several specialised positions that allows for different body types to play and be competitve. For what it's worth, I was chatting last night to my best mate, who is a urologist. He suggested that the reading he had done on the subject was that in the long term, transwomen posess no significant physical advantage over cis women. Regarding Safety I really think this is a red herring. If Ben Tamifuna can play on the same pitch as Cheslin Kolbe, there is NO reasonable argument for excluding transwomen. If you want to exclude transwomen on this basis you need to change all forms of rugby to weight grades.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 02:57 |
|
Yeah the safety thing in rugby is a garbage argument. It's extremely patronizing to ciswomen players to assume their fragile bodies are going to shatter as soon as they get tackled by a transwoman.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 03:12 |
|
turntabler posted:I am a pretty casual fan but I just read it as two teams in transition ran into each other, and the all blacks were overconfident in not expecting the wallabies to be as confident and (fairly) competent as they were. It was just odd, because the quality looked so much lower, maybe the Wallabies defence was much better than I gave it credit for which is why all the Australian's comp's attack looked like garbage. Charles 2 of Spain posted:Yeah the safety thing in rugby is a garbage argument. It's extremely patronizing to ciswomen players to assume their fragile bodies are going to shatter as soon as they get tackled by a transwoman. When I was playing rugby I played a full contact scratch match against a womens team and it was totally fine. No different than playing a mens team that was on the slightly smaller side. EDIT: To clarify the women's team at the club asked to play us because they really needed match practice.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 09:47 |
|
This same conversation happens every time to All Blacks do not dominate. If there is not a win this weekend then there is a convo worth having.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 10:44 |
|
Wasps: Bristol placed on standby for Premiership final over coronavirus outbreak - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54574710 Lol
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 19:03 |
|
tarbrush posted:Wasps: Bristol placed on standby for Premiership final over coronavirus outbreak - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54574710 HahHh
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 19:29 |
|
tarbrush posted:Wasps: Bristol placed on standby for Premiership final over coronavirus outbreak - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54574710 That would be amazing.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 19:38 |
|
I'm hoping for hilarity and my own selfish reasons Bristol cone down with a case too and we get a random Exeter Bath replay
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 19:39 |
|
I’m feeling some silverware tonight
|
# ? Oct 16, 2020 21:40 |
|
What a game, honestly as always Bristol came back in force in the second half. So proud of my club.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 09:39 |
|
Great match, that first try was a serious statement, good to see Pat Lam and Bristol to get rewarded for their hard work.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 13:34 |
|
looking forward to hoggy v russell.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 16:27 |
|
Iribaren is currently taking a poo poo with his clothes on.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 16:58 |
|
lol.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 16:59 |
|
Clownball activated
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 17:01 |
|
What a pass
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 17:13 |
|
johny gray has missed a tackle!
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 17:24 |
|
A really strong Scottish representation in this final.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 18:17 |
|
Oh no thomas francis
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 18:26 |
|
Thoughts from watching Exeter vs racing euro final: I'm always shocked by the lack of professionalism of top level club rugby. How does Russell not take a drop goal down by 1 point dead in front of the posts with 6 minutes to go. They don't even think about it. Nigel Owens having to argue with the tmo about the clock Well done to the chiefs', that's quite the story going from championship to euro champions.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 18:40 |
|
Vaders Jester posted:Great match, that first try was a serious statement, good to see Pat Lam and Bristol to get rewarded for their hard work. Pat Lam has done such great work with Bristol, we really owe him a lot.
|
# ? Oct 17, 2020 19:52 |
|
Caleb Clarke absolutely killing it with that dump truck rear end.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2020 05:08 |
|
Scotland team to face Georgia on Friday night.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2020 11:35 |
|
Are English-based players unavailable? Because there's a pretty glaring omission at #5.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2020 22:16 |
|
The Exeter players are in the Prem final so will be unavailable.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2020 22:48 |
|
Also it's only Georgia, so never likely to be first choice XV.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2020 11:12 |
|
Wasps: 11 players unavailable for Premiership final against Exeter Chiefs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54644695 Exeter could hit three figures here...
|
# ? Oct 22, 2020 14:00 |
|
Yeah, against Georgia Scotland were always likely to test out combinations and get some of the new players like van der Merwe and Kebble their caps.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2020 14:25 |
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54652034 Some Barbarians players have breached their bubble, putting the England game in doubt.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2020 20:46 |
|
Vaders Jester posted:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54652034 Geez, between this and the premiership you have to wonder what these guys are thinking, if anything
|
# ? Oct 22, 2020 23:01 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 20:48 |
|
12 players, including Robshaw who is captain, Maitland, and Wray. I know the Barbarians is basically a piss up with a rugby match somewhere in the middle but fucksake, the hotel they have is huge and has a bar.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2020 01:24 |