It is still a shock to people like me - who fought Section 28 when it was Clause 27 - to find ourselves pitched against this mendacious propaganda from
@stonewalluk
Here are a few areas where this tweet is wrong (thread)
@stonewalluk
Here are a few areas where this tweet is wrong (thread)
First, and most obviously, the proposals from World Rugby *do not* exclude anyone from playing Rugby. They *do* exclude Trans women from playing women's rugby: they do so for sound reasons to do with fairness and safety.
either @stonewalluk care about safety and fairness or they don't, either they will engage with the arguments there or they won't - that's up to them. But pretending that this is just about 'rights' and 'inclusion' in this faux-naive way just shows them up as bad faith actors.
It is also, and in passing, a slur on @WorldRugby, (who can, of course, look after themselves).
As for 'listening to the voice of Trans athletes' this is a further slur. People including WR, have done precisely that. What @stonewalluk mean is - listen *only* to the voices of trans athletes - and listen only to those, within that, that agree with us - plenty of trans
people don't. It means - *Don't* listen to the medics, the experts on concussion, the sports scientists, the legal advice, the risk analysts. (and the sports ethicists).
For my part, I accept that a smallish number of transwomen, who currently play rugby, will be excluded from taking part in the women's game. They will be able to tell a narrative of exclusion, and I don't deny that they will feel some hurt. But it is profoundly self regarding
and unreasonable to insist that that hurt justifies a veto on protecting women rugby players from unnecessary risk and unwarranted unfairness. It is unreasonable to heap that burden of risk and that unfairness on women rugby players.
This is not a campaign against bigotry. It is a campaign to make the game of rugby unsafe and unfair for women.
