…you got all of that from a photo?
Yeah, that’s like being run over by a truck. Roughly speaking there is about a 25% mass difference between these two players. Now add the physiological differences between men and women
But in one way, the sex difference is stark: Men are physically stronger than women, on average. A study in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that men had an average of 26 lbs. (12 kilograms) more skeletal muscle mass than women. Women also exhibited about 40 percent less upper-body strength and 33 percent less lower-body strength, on average, the study found.
The researchers found that height and weight differences between men and women could explain only about half of the difference in strength. Researchers reporting in 1993 in the European Journal of Applied Physiology found that men’s brawn could also be attributed to a larger cross-section in individual muscle fibers.
Still think you’re comparing apples to apples?
Do you carry all this baggage with you everywhere you go? You must be very fit or very exhausted.
Yeah. Why didn’t you?
Hey, Mod hat on. I’d like to remind posters not to insult each other. A lot of the rhetoric here is getting heated and some of it seem more directed at the posters than at the posts.
Yeah, and life experience. The players at the elite men’s league don’t just come from nowhere and start playing one day. They likely have been playing since they were kids and have moved up through more and more competitive teams. Along the way, they gradually advanced through higher levels of play which was faster, more aggressive, and more hard-hitting. By the time they are at the elite levels, they have extensive experience at playing at that speed and intensity, and at getting hit by players at that level. The same thing happens with the women, but they are playing against other women. In general, women’s play is slower, less aggressive, and the hits won’t be as hard. The elite women are still elite, but they are not at the level of elite men. I know from soccer that the under-15 elite boys can beat the US World Cup soccer team. If rugby is similar, the elite women might be comparable to 15-year-old boy rugby players. So a biologically adult male playing in the women’s league might be comparable to an adult male player playing against 15-year-old boys.
…but why would you add the physiological differences between men and women? Most Rugby Unions have a requirements that need to be met in order for transgender players to be able to play. So those differences are largely taken into account.
If you didn’t already know there is a movement that thinks Polynesian rugby players are too big to be playing with other players. Parents are concerned their kids have to play against athletes “twice their size.” So if you don’t think we are “comparing apples with apples” then what is the difference between the two cases here?
Because most of it was pseudo-science. I don’t take that stuff seriously. And I didn’t get that from the photo at all.
…so not from the science? Completely and utterly anecdotal?
Okay then.
I was surmising from your posts since you haven’t made it clear. And still haven’t.
Women are not just small men. I guess that isn’t obvious enough for some people. There’s a huge list of differences, nearly all advantaging men, which a year or two of testosterone can never make up for. It’s not at all comparable to different races.
There’s the “science” alluded to above. 15 yr old boys beat national level women’s teams in soccer and hockey. That’s even without allowing bodychecking in hockey. A transwoman who went through male puberty will have a crazy advantage.
…that you don’t understand my position doesn’t mean I haven’t either explained it, or that you should be allowed to simply “invent one” on my behalf. Just stop doing that already.
Transwomen are women.
I guess that isn’t obvious enough for some people.
Fortunately the Rugby Football Union doesn’t see it the same way as you do.
As a polynesian living in a rugby-mad country who has had to listen and deal with the very same arguments made in this thread against transgender women I would have to disagree with you.
Hello Kettle, I’m Pot. Aren’t we both using anecdotal experience? When you described what you saw in the photo, was that based on scientific journal articles or your own experience?
Taken from another angle, how far down in the mens leagues would a team of elite women have to go in order to win a rugby match? Like in the soccer example, the USA Women’s Team trains against under-15 boys and the boys win. It’s reasonable to say that elite adult women play soccer at a level at or below elite 15-year-old boys. What is comparable in rugby? If the top women’s rugby team played the elite under-15 boy rugby players, who would win?
…which is why transgender athletes who have been allowed to compete at the Olympic Games since 2004 have won so many medals. Just saying.
It’s weird. I think most people here agree that for transwomen=women as far as access to female spaces/services there should be some level of gatekeeping. Except Banquet Bear, I guess.
So are you ok with surgery, years of hormone therapy and legal recognition*, as the Olympics require, as a fair deal for transgender athletes?
*eta, actually they changed it to making a declaration of gender and sticking with it for four years.
I suppose one reason its relevant is that the regulations say that a transwoman must post testosterone results below 10 nmol/L for 12 months before competition. The average women, premenopausal, measures 1.7 nmol/L. So not apples to apples.
That is interesting but I’m not sure it’s relevant. Unless the rugby league decides to exclude Polynesians from rugby, they will have to be permitted to continue to play as they have to date. More relevant is whether you see any issues with allowing transwomen to play in the mens league. If it’s about the love of the game, what’s the down side? Tangentially, are transmen playing in mens sports leagues with the same frequency as transwomen are playing in womens leagues? If not, why not?
…not really. I got shown a photo of rugby players playing on the rugby field and I said I saw a photo of rugby players playing on a rugby field. You saw that same photo and saw:
“One difference on the mens side is that the players have been playing in matches which have a male-level of aggression. Presumably, these players have developed over the years to be accustomed to that level of aggression and have developed the skills to deal with it. The reverse is not the same. The females have been playing against other females and are accustomed to the female level of play and aggression. Females are going to be overpowered by a biological male and not necessarily physically prepared to take the stronger hits from a biological male opponent.”
I mean, that’s a hell-of-a-take from just a photo.
Transwomen are women. What are you talking about here again?
What you are proposing is far more similar to a situation where polynesians were barred from playing in the main league, created their own league which received vastly less funding, recognition and respect, and as soon as they started to get a crumb of notice, white people insisted on joining and taking all the top spots, while still barring you from playing in their leagues. That is the closest analogue to what you are supporting.
Non-sequiturs fly like a banana.
I’m not sure they care about women as much as what can be gained through the manipulation of language.
What specifically is controversial in the statement you are responding to that makes the claim below made by @filmore. Try to be less dismissive and more substantive, if you don’t mind: