Trans Women Belong In Rugby

I’ve played a lot of sports. I’ve been a member of many teams. And I’ve never found teams – or a sports culture – as inclusive as I’ve experienced in rugby. And yet…

World Rugby, the international organization that governs rugby union, officially barred transgender women from participation in international rugby on October 9, 2020. The report cites “player welfare risks” as the motivation behind the ban. This ban sets a monolithic – and preemptive – precedent. Let’s break down the arguments, shall we?

Little scientific research exists that studies the performance and abilities of elite transgender athletes. And no studies specifically focus on trans athletes in rugby. Likewise, no examples exist where trans women seriously injure cis women in athletics either, Anne Lieberman, a director for Athlete Ally, told the New York Times.

Now, World Rugby references a Swedish study that recently concluded trans women lost only 5% of their muscle mass after testosterone inhibition for a year. Well, the article’s title says a lot: it reads “Transwomen.” “Trans” is an adjective that describes a person’s gender identity and it should be used as such. The fusion of “trans” and “woman” problematically suggests that trans women (or men) are not truly women (or men). Often, people use these terms from a place of transphobia – and if the transphobia stems from ignorance, it is no less harmful.

Further, World Rugby uses this study to make conclusions about elite athletes, yes? Well, the study describes the participants as only “recreationally active” with “no structured training.” Does that sound like elite athletes? Similarly, the study only measured muscle mass and isolated strength. I’m pretty sure athleticism comprises much more than those two measurements capture. And last time I checked, it doesn’t make much sense to compare apples and oranges – nor to make definitive conclusions about apples when the research studied oranges.

Read to the end of the study, however, and the authors recognize these limitations. And they specifically write, “…it is still uncertain how the findings would translate to transgender athletes undergoing advanced training regimens during the gender-affirming intervention.” They go even further to say,

The question of when it is fair to permit a Transwoman to compete in sport in line with her experienced gender identity is challenging and very little data have been provided to add clarity on the potential performance benefits for TW arising from the lifelong experience of being a biological male.

Those highlights are mine, by the way. When you read the words “uncertain,” “challenging,” “very little data,” and “potential,” do they paint a strong picture from which to draw an absolute mandate? (Here’s a document that summarizes all the research World Rugby used to reach their decision. All the same critiques apply.)

As I mentioned above, athleticism includes much more than muscle mass. Speed, agility, game sense, to name a few, matter too. And size differences exist in rugby, even if all players identify as cis. Take a scrumhalf and a prop. There’s a size difference – and it’s often quite significant. Where’s the uproar about the danger in this case? “[Size difference] doesn’t seem to bother rugby, unless of course it’s a trans woman who’s bigger,” says Joanna Harper, a researcher who studies trans athletes.

This ban also rests on the assumption that all female-bodied athletes cannot compete with male-bodied ones. And it bases much of its rationality on testosterone’s effect on trans women’s size and athleticism. Well, no clear, consistent relationship exists between testosterone levels and athleticism (see Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography). Sure, we live in a world where, colloquially, testosterone = man = strong = athletic. Let’s not forget we live in a patriarchal system that only benefits from this belief that testosterone (the “male” hormone) bestows unmatched strength on (cis) men. Isn’t it (way past) time we challenge this assumption?

Moreover, this ban effectively makes trans athletes choose between life-affirming treatment and participation in sports – an activity that often provides physical and mental health benefits. I firmly believe sports have exponential potential to impact people’s lives positively. We’re going to deny trans women that benefit? Trans women deserve to live their true identity – their gender AND athletic identity – as much as everyone else. What gives (the collective) us any right to make a blanket decision for them?

And yes. World Rugby made this decision FOR them. Their deliberations did not include trans women. NBC reported that World Ruby also released their guidelines prior to a November board meeting where the organization purportedly planned to review constituents’ feedback. How do people expect to make informed, well-intentioned decisions if they don’t listen to the people whom the decisions affect? Who knows trans women better than trans women?

Let’s not forget how preemptive this ban is. No trans women have yet (publicly) competed at the highest levels. And no trans women are expected to compete in the Tokyo Olympics or the 2021 Women’s Rugby World Cup. Why such a rush to implement this ban? Where’s the fire? Why ban trans women with absolutely no practical application at elite levels? “Safety,” probably. See above for my response. And listen to and learn from trans women who play – safely – in non-elite rugby competitions.

Clearly, World Rugby has a lot to say and trans women in rugby and safety. What do they say about trans men in rugby? Well, World Rugby still allows trans men to play on men’s teams (after they jump through a few hoops). Why do they afford men the agency to decide whether a trans men can play with them? Don’t women deserve the same autonomy over their own decisions and bodies? Effectively, they let trans men assume the “risk” of sports participation. Why do they not adopt a similar framework – where women’s teams make their own decision whether to assume the same risk?

I think it’s important to note that New Zealand, England, Canada, and the US currently reject the ban. New Zealand – THE All Blacks – reject it. Who does World Rugby speak for, if they don’t even speak for such fixtures of the game?

A few final thoughts: I’m sure this piece makes it seem like I disagree with World Rugby’s ban (and I do). I also, however, disagree with the way it was made and the assumptions on which it seems based. I don’t know the answer. I’m not sure anyone does. And I doubt we’ll reach a just consensus if we don’t interrogate these biases and beliefs – and invite trans women to (lead) the conversation.

If World Rugby really wants to live by their mantra, “Rugby for All,” the organization needs to reexamine their policies and positions. And how they make them.