The #transgender athlete in sport meeting organized by @WorldRugby is now done. I want to share the PROCESS (*not the outcomes, at least not yet) with you, explain why it was designed that way, and what the next steps will be. Here are all the delegates, and this is a thread (1/) 
(2/) The process followed was designed to be comprehensive, in-depth, transparent, inclusive and rigorous. We set up 3 distinct groups. First, a policy-group consisting of WR-linked people who would make recommendations to World Rugby on how to proceed. Think of them as “judges"
(3/) This policy-group was chaired by the amazing Dr Araba Chintoh (psychiatrist & former Canada international). It had on it 2 sports physicians, a physiologist, a lawyer, head of women’s rugby, head of Technical services, and a women’s player
(4/) One really important part was to recognise that the recommendations of this policy group that influence possible decisions taken will affect women’s sport, so this policy group was chosen to represent women’s rugby. It was set up with world-class people from the sport
(5/) Next group - an expert group of global leaders in the following four domains: Science, medicine, law/risk, ethics/social factors. If the policy-group I mentioned earlier are “judges”, this group is the “witnesses”. They were invited to share their expertise & insights
(6/) So we had a developmental biologist to talk about sex determination & differentiation, and how this creates sporting performance differences. We had scientists to discuss whether lowering T removes/reduces these differences.
(7/) We had specialist physicians talk about the challenges and medical considerations in treating trans athletes. We heard from experts on injury in rugby, describing risk factors and how they differ in M & W and how this may be affected by testosterone/androgens at puberty
(8/) We had legal experts, barristers, who shared insights on human rights issues, gender identity, liability in the event of injury and possible claims about fairness & safety. We had advocacy groups representing both sides. We had sport ethics. This is the “witness group"
(9/) The purpose of this was to facilitate debate & ‘cross-pollination’ of ideas. We wanted to explore differences in ideas, so we invited people who had divergent views on biology, law, rights, ethics. Goal was to find the areas of agreement and dispute. There’s value in both
(10/) We wanted to know, for instance, what a barrister advises when confronted with injury & biological data on M vs F strength differences. We wanted to find out how ethics assesses arguments for inclusion and exclusion. How science assesses claims of unfair discrimination.
(11/) We also didn’t want to shy away from difficult issues. This is an incredibly emotive subject, and Dr Chintoh handled this amazingly. But we wanted to put it all out in the open, discuss it, juxtapose conflicting views & evidence to allow the policy group to see it all
(12/) This way, we could assess the merits of every argument in those four domains - science, medicine, law/risk, social factors. That would hopefully make for a complete and informed final recommendation.
(13/) With that in mind, this it the programme/agenda that was followed over the two days. Everything from biology to insurance risk assessors, and discussion on every issue. Plus social factors - we are all more similar than different!
(14/) The third group was a group of observers, who included diversity officers from Sport England, and International Gay Rugby, who also contributed to discussion and allowed us to hear from trans players.
(15/) We are also committed to total transparency. And so every speaker consented to being filmed, and provided their presentations, so that we will be able to put this online, in full, allowing the whole world to see and hear the arguments and positions we did.
(16/) Which brings me onto what happens next. So much ground was covered, some new, some not, but it has given the policy-group a lot to get through. Further consulting may be needed on specific nuanced matters, and once that is done, a recommendation will be made to guide policy
(17/) That may take some time (unknown), and then begin internal discussions (WR has member unions, whose views must be considered also), so can’t say for sure when a decision will be reached. Here is the press release from the event: …drugbycommunications.activehosted.com/index.php?acti…
(18/18) But at some point, the presentations & discussions from this meeting will be made available to all, and then hopefully in conjunction, the sport can release a policy that does the right things, also explaining the “why” and “how”. That’s all for now, thanks!
