Today @EnglandRugby has launched a 2 week external consultation on it proposed transgender inclusion policy. A link to the survey and a promotional video to accompany the draft policy can be found here /1 englandrugby.com/about-rfu/rfu-…
In contrast to the @WorldRugby decision to restrict elite women's rugby to female players only, @Englandrugby will continue allow male people who identity as women to play community women's rugby /2
In the video they say this
"The policy aims to strike a balance between fairness, inclusion and safe participation."
"The RFU has considered measures to safeguard and mitigate as far as reasonably possible any risks to players". /3
'striking a balance' means accepting a trade-off in safety and fairness for one group (female players) to enable the inclusion of another group (male-born trans players). /4
They acknowledge there will be some loss in safety and fairness for females
"Research has suggested that even after hormone therapy there may still be differences between transgender women and cis women in strength and speed" /5
They also say something quite silly and disingenuous
"While this may indicate a potential performance advantage, up to this point research does not suggest that size has an affect on injury risk" /6
Its the disparity in size and strength that matters - something that is more likely to happen when males and female are on the pitch together. /7
They also say something in the video that is unnecessary and wrong
"We understand there are several misconceptions about transgender participants in rugby as well as in wider society".
They do not elaborate on what these misconceptions might be. /8
They admit males do retain an advantage but tell us it's too difficult to measure. /9
"While strength and speed have been identified as a potential performance advantage for transgender women - testing and the comparison of data is especially challenging in the community game"
Despite their claims that size doesn't correlate with injury risk they say they will measure height and weight instead /10
"Height and weight criteria provide easily measurable and comparable markers"
170 cm (5'7") is pretty short for an adult male so for most transwomen this will trigger a 'coach assessment'.
Sounds promising but.... /11
They provide no details on how the RFU coach will assess the potential for 'safety risk' or 'performance advantage'
"Such assessment must be completed to the satisfaction of the Panel" /12
They also make no reference to how much 'safety risk' or 'performance advantage' is considered too much.
This policy fudge is both undefinable and unimplementable
It's unlikely the panel would ever dare exclude someone and risk having to justify that decision in court /13
So what may look at first glance to be a step towards protecting safety and fairness for its female players, it is nothing more than a figleaf.
RFU has simply taken its decision making process behind close doors making it both unaccountable and unchallengeable /14
They also fudge things for children playing rugby. No clear rules at all meaning the panel has the discretion to allow teenage males to play age-grade rugby with girls /15
This is in direct conflict with its own very strict sex-based safeguarding rules for rugby. The RFU's Age-grade Code of Practice states mixed sex rugby is only permitted until Age 11. /16
The RFU also gives the panel discretion to allow female players who identify as men to take testosterone and still play in the WOMEN'S game.
This goes against anti-doping rules and presents yet more safety and fairness concerns for the other female players. /17
So that's 7 male players and up to 4 females on steroids currently playing women's contact rugby.
Plus there is no obligation on a player to inform the RFU of their trans status. So how many new players simply turn up and register as women and play under the radar /18
In conclusion, this draft policy tries to do the impossible and inevitably fails. There's simply no known method to reliably monitor and ensure safety and fairness for females while also allowing some males to play women's rugby /19
This is after all why we have male and female teams in the first place. Separating by sex already delivers the fairness and safety women need to be included in rugby.
World Rugby understood this. RFU probably do too but are too afraid to admit it /20
"The regulation & division of sport ought to reflect & be written around bodies. It ought to recognise male advantage & protect female sport from those with male advantage. What counts is not identity but male physiological advantage" /22
Thank you to Baroness Noakes @1SVN for submitting this series of parliamentary questions following the consent order signed by @ONS that Census law does not allow sex to be redefined to include self-identified sex. We look forward to the answers by 31st March /1
You think you are doing the right thing. It’s time to open your eyes. Your own people are doing the work of transactivists and you’ll be the one left carrying the can /2
LGBT means trans-focused, at the expense of other groups, especially women. Gender ideology is now deeply embedded within most organisations and it’s your own staff facilitating it. Stonewall and co can keep their hands clean & orchestrate the erasure of sex from a distance /3
Government departments have questions to answer of the Census debacle. This was not an isolated incident caused by legal slip up by the @ONS. The unlawful guidance was advised and supported by many other public bodies /1
On Sunday 14th March on @BBCPolitics#marr we heard Sir Ian Diamond, Head of ONS tell us "It's a very simple question. What is your sex".
But, just days before, in High Court the @ONS was telling us it wasn’t a simple question at all. /2
Sir James Eadie QC was arguing for the @ONS that sex was an “umbrella concept” and such a “difficult question” that without guidance some people would be unable to answer it. He argued there were “5 concepts of sex” and that the definition of sex wasn’t “hermetically sealed” /3
Judge: Mr Justice Swift
Defence Counsel: Sir James Edie QC
Claimant Counsel: Mr Jason Coppel QC
/1
Permission for live tweeting granted by the Judge.
Some IT technical issues delaying the start of the hearing /2
Claimants Counsel sets out the legal arguments.
Census law mandates citizens to answer "What is your sex" according to their legal sex (birth or acquired by GRC).
Guidance conflates and confuses the concepts of sex and gender identity /3
Everyone needs accurate data on sex in the census. It's important for the LGB & T communities too.
Accurate information on birth sex is important so it can be placed alongside the new voluntary question on sexual orientation /1
Ticking the box “gay or lesbian” necessarily requires accurate sex data to disaggregate the two distinct groups of gay men from lesbian women. Forms of discrimination against lesbians can be different from forms of discrimination against gay men, as can their health issues /2
We need good data regarding which young people are identifying as transgender and why most are now natal females. It will be of crucial importance for the ongoing independent review into gender identity services for children and young people led by Dr Hilary Cass /3
TODAY: @ONS must defend its decision to redefine the meaning of sex in the #Census2021 in the high court.
Follow #FPFWvONS for live twitter updates throughout the day. Proceedings start 10am Tuesday 9th March /1
This legal challenge is necessary because @ONS published unlawful Guidance to accompany the question "What is your sex?" on the #Census2021.
The ONS expanded the definition of sex to include self-declared gender identity. This means accurate data on birth sex gets lost /2
The Guidance was published on 12th February. Just 10 days before @ONS was due to start accepting census returns and just 5 weeks before Census Day on 21st March 2021.
We started legal proceedings within 7 days and just 27 days after publication @ONS are in the high court /3