RMIT Classification: Trusted
Why the World Rugby guidelines banning
trans athletes from the women’s game
are reasonable
Published: The Conversation, February 23, 2021 11.42am AEDT Updated: March 1, 2021 4.28pm
AEDT
Author: Jon Pike, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, The Open University
In 2020, World Rugby undertook a painstaking policy process to address the issue of
transwomen in rugby. This led to guidelines that exclude transwomen from
competing in women’s rugby at the World Cup level — the first international sports
federation to do so.
The new guidelines don’t exclude transwomen from rugby completely, of course: they
just specify that players must compete in the category of their birth sex, for reasons of
safety and fairness.
Though controversial, the guidelines are fair, reasonable and supported by evidence.
They offer the best way forward, not just for rugby, but for other sports.
A sports ethics viewpoint
I participated in the global symposium in London where the guidelines were debated,
as an expert on sports ethics. I’m a philosopher rather than a sports scientist, and I’ve
done work for both the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic
Committee in the past.
Many advocates for trans inclusion in the women’s game believe the right way to
address this issue is to balance fairness against safety. But in this recently published
paper — drawn from my presentation to the London symposium — I argue such a
“balancing” approach is seriously wrong. Instead, organisations like World Rugby
should adopt a “lexical priority” approach.
What does that mean? From the possible set of rules that exist, it means first
selecting those that are safe, then the safe rules that are also fair, then the safe and
fair rules that are maximally inclusive.
This approach — first, do A, then B, then C — is better than an opaque attempt to
“balance” all three at the same time.
Why the World Rugby guidelines banning
trans athletes from the women’s game
are reasonable
Published: The Conversation, February 23, 2021 11.42am AEDT Updated: March 1, 2021 4.28pm
AEDT
Author: Jon Pike, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, The Open University
In 2020, World Rugby undertook a painstaking policy process to address the issue of
transwomen in rugby. This led to guidelines that exclude transwomen from
competing in women’s rugby at the World Cup level — the first international sports
federation to do so.
The new guidelines don’t exclude transwomen from rugby completely, of course: they
just specify that players must compete in the category of their birth sex, for reasons of
safety and fairness.
Though controversial, the guidelines are fair, reasonable and supported by evidence.
They offer the best way forward, not just for rugby, but for other sports.
A sports ethics viewpoint
I participated in the global symposium in London where the guidelines were debated,
as an expert on sports ethics. I’m a philosopher rather than a sports scientist, and I’ve
done work for both the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic
Committee in the past.
Many advocates for trans inclusion in the women’s game believe the right way to
address this issue is to balance fairness against safety. But in this recently published
paper — drawn from my presentation to the London symposium — I argue such a
“balancing” approach is seriously wrong. Instead, organisations like World Rugby
should adopt a “lexical priority” approach.
What does that mean? From the possible set of rules that exist, it means first
selecting those that are safe, then the safe rules that are also fair, then the safe and
fair rules that are maximally inclusive.
This approach — first, do A, then B, then C — is better than an opaque attempt to
“balance” all three at the same time.
