Read on Twitter
This might not go well. Here is a thread explaining why: https://twitter.com/WomenandSportCA/status/1334156773394182150
1/ In an article for @ConversationCA, in the name of the head of @EthicsInSPORT Bruce Kidd, the careful process adopted by @WorldRugby is trashed in a series of outrageous ad hominem attacks. Kidd says: "World Rugby relies on prejudices and anecdotes". This is false.
2/ Kidd says: "World Rugby ban constitutes another sorry example of the weaponization of “fairness” as a way to preserve sports for those already privileged to enjoy them." - that is to say, he imputes an elitist intention to the World Rugby group. This, too, is false
3/ In part of the paper that now seems to have been removed, Kidd asserted that there was no scientific evidence for the ban. On the contrary, there was huge scientific evidence for the ban. I would like to know from Professor Kidd or his co authors, why this part of the article
4/ ... was deleted. @Scienceofsport @FondOfBeetles
The article alleges says that "the problem with World Rugby’s approach to fairness is that it uses one arbitrary marker (male puberty) as the focus of fairness"
The article alleges says that "the problem with World Rugby’s approach to fairness is that it uses one arbitrary marker (male puberty) as the focus of fairness"
5/ My question is this: are you in favour of women's sport at all? I know that @WorldRugby is. If you are writing in protest to them about the fact that physiological dimorphism (mostly enacted through puberty) is arbitrary, I hope you will be calling for the abolition
6/ of the women's game: if you are consistent, you are abolitionists.
@WomenandSportCA Your letter starts with a straightforward lie: "The ban violates the human rights of transgender and gender diverse women, forcing them out of sport and denying them the benefits it brings."
@WomenandSportCA Your letter starts with a straightforward lie: "The ban violates the human rights of transgender and gender diverse women, forcing them out of sport and denying them the benefits it brings."
7/ This is no more true than the claim that the world cycling 35-45 amateur class violates the rights of pro-cyclists or cyclists under 35. It is a nonsense claim. No-one is being 'forced out of sport'.
8/ You are making false claims and getting found out. You have no coherent ethical stance. You rely only slogans like TWAW, and nothing else. [A small detail: do you even read what you write? wtf is this stuff about 'gender-diverse people,' who are entirely unaffected?]
9/ Of course, @WorldRugby will say what they like: I reckon they will reply to you firmly, but *much* more politely than I would. You don't really care sufficiently about ethics in sport to actually engage in a reasoned argument. That's why you've got all the ad hominems.
10/ But - and this is me being as polite as I can - you haven't thought this through, you are being outrageously dishonest, you have no integrity, and you hide from discussion. Hyperbole is no substitute for argument.
11/ Anyone who wants to - and those who haven't but need to (looking at you @EthicsInSPORT @WomenandSportCA) can do the reading here:
https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2020/10/09/a67e3cc3-7dea-4f1e-b523-2cba1073729d/Transgender-Research_Summary-of-data_ENGLISH-09.10.2020.pdf
https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2020/10/09/a67e3cc3-7dea-4f1e-b523-2cba1073729d/Transgender-Research_Summary-of-data_ENGLISH-09.10.2020.pdf
