Since it is a lovely peaceful Saturday morning, I clearly have to rectify that. Therefore: the World Rugby Transgender Policy and Nye Bevan.

Thread.

This is the WR policy, and explanation by Ross Tucker, who was part of the Working Group. I presented to the Workshop in February on liability, but wasn’t part of the Working Group itself. It’s worth reading this before going further. https://t.co/8JFNztvC9V
And this is the statue of Nye Bevan in Cardiff. Anyone who goes to matches in Cardiff knows it. It’s right by the Castle; more importantly, it’s right by the Rummer. Please God, we’ll get back to see it on a match day soon.
However, what I'm talking about here isn't his comment that he learnt everything he needed to know about politics by dealing with rugby committees, but the one that made the title of the last decent Manic Street Preachers album:

"This is my truth, tell me yours."
What has struck me in the debate/flame-war over the proposed policy is that a large part of this is conflicting truths.

I know that sounds impossible. The truth is the truth is the truth, right? There can only be one truth, not truths, right?

Wrong. Here's why.
It is something lawyers in practice get to see from the off that two people can swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and clearly be absolutely telling the truth, but give very different accounts. Both are telling the truth, but *their* truth.
That's the first truth. Subjective truth, the truth as you see it, as you live it.

"Lived experience" is this form of truth. It is your individual truth. It is entirely true for you because it is your experience of what happened.
The problem with this is that there is no hierarchy of subjective truths. Each is entirely true for that person. If lived experiences clash, then you have two differing truths. The problem is, sometimes you have to prefer a truth to come to a decision or policy.
It is, I would suggest, a weakness in putting "lived experience" as central in policy-making that it cannot provide a basis for making policy when it cannot provide a means for preferring one over the other.

Two such means are other truths: legal and scientific.
Scientific truth is - and this is the view of a non-scientist - best described as "objective truth", not in the sense that it *is* necessarily objectively true but that it prioritises objective measurements and data. A thing is true (or at least, non-falsifiable) if data exists.
To decide what is or is not so for the purposes of scientific truth, you need data and to extrapolate from data. Sometime the data is limited, but it is what it is and is there in the open to be critiqued within the framework of the scientific process.
Subjective and objective truth don't really get on very well in the human condition. That your lived truth is just anecdote or an outlier in terms of data measurement and science doesn't mean your lived truth isn't true for you; but lived truth doesn't displace the data, either.
Then you get legal truth, or, at least, the manner in which law prefers accounts or decides what it will treat as true.

In the Common Law world, the key word here is "reasonable". Decisions must be reasonable; "beyond reasonable doubt"; "reasonably foreseeable".
Thus, a judge deciding a civil claim such as a PI action will look at two people giving their account of their lived truth and will decide which is more likely that not and ascribe liability if the the law says it is reasonable to do so.
It's not that one is entirely true or not, in terms of objective truth or that one person is not telling their subjective truth; indeed, judges frequently state that everyone is doing their best to tell the truth. It's about what's more likely that not and then what's reasonable.
Policy-making in a framework of potential liability has to take account of what the law says. It is, I am afraid, inescapable, especially in a collision sport which exists within the implied consent to battery and only so long as it can remain insurable at reasonable cost.
Thus, a policy set in accordance with legal requirements need not be absolutely in accordance with data to be reasonable; and it is, inevitably, not going to accord with everyone's lived truth because lived truths always clash. Like Nye Fawr said: this is my truth, tell me yours.
I would note, however, that if you think insurers are going to prioritise subjective lived truth over actuarial tables and avoiding liability, then all I can say is you've never seen a claims manager's response to plaintiff medical reports. Let's just say they tend to scepticism.
Thus, the driver of policy is probably going to be the legal truth: what is reasonable in terms of the evidence available.

It does have the advantage that lawyers are used to being blamed. For centuries, we have been the Millwall of professions: nobody likes us, we don't care.
In truth, I feel a driver of what will happen in practice is insurance costs. Insurers will price for anything. That doesn't mean the price will be affordable. If they feel they don't want to insure a given risk, it'll be priced out pretty rapidly. We will see what happens there.
However, a policy must still be set, once you become aware of data and risks, and it must be reasonable.

As noted, going by "reasonable" doesn't mean people will be happy. When a subjective truth isn't preferred, people feel hurt. There is no way around that to make policy.
I would, however, note that while Nye made no mean fist of invective himself, he didn't say: "This is my truth, yours is wrong."

It was: "This is my truth, tell me yours."
Whether you agree or not with the outcome, the policy-making process by World Rugby was an exercise in trying to hear those different truths. That's to be commended. Not getting the outcome you wanted doesn't mean the process was wrong or rigged, any more that a court is.
And it is fair to note that if you want to persuade people of your truth, you need to understand it may not be the only one Likening African-Canadian chairs to the KKK isn't going to do that. Invective may proclaim your truth louder but won't engage with the other truths.
As with Nye himself - the manic street preacher - "This is my truth, tell me yours" does mean you might occasionally have to listen to that other truth. Even lawyers might have to, come to that.

More from Society

We finally have the U.S. Citizenship Act Bill Text! I'm going to go through some portions of the bill right now and highlight some of the major changes and improvements that it would make to our immigration system.

Thread:


First the Bill makes a series of promises changes to the way we talk about immigrants and immigration law.

Gone would be the term "alien" and in its place is "noncitizen."

Also gone would be the term "alienage," replaced with "noncitizenship."


Now we get to the "earned path to citizenship" for all undocumented immigrants present in the United States on January 1, 2021.

Under this bill, anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria for a new "lawful prospective immigrant status" can come out of the shadows.


So, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming a "lawful prospective immigrant status"? Those are in a new INA 245G and include:

- Payment of the appropriate fees
- Continuous presence after January 1, 2021
- Not having certain criminal record (but there's a waiver)


After a person has been in "lawful prospective immigrant status" for at least 5 years, they can apply for a green card, so long as they still pass background checks and have paid back any taxes they are required to do so by law.

However! Some groups don't have to wait 5 years.

You May Also Like

MDZS is laden with buddhist references. As a South Asian person, and history buff, it is so interesting to see how Buddhism, which originated from India, migrated, flourished & changed in the context of China. Here's some research (🙏🏼 @starkjeon for CN insight + citations)

1. LWJ’s sword Bichen ‘is likely an abbreviation for the term 躲避红尘 (duǒ bì hóng chén), which can be translated as such: 躲避: shunning or hiding away from 红尘 (worldly affairs; which is a buddhist teaching.) (
https://t.co/zF65W3roJe) (abbrev. TWX)

2. Sandu (三 毒), Jiang Cheng’s sword, refers to the three poisons (triviṣa) in Buddhism; desire (kāma-taṇhā), delusion (bhava-taṇhā) and hatred (vibhava-taṇhā).

These 3 poisons represent the roots of craving (tanha) and are the cause of Dukkha (suffering, pain) and thus result in rebirth.

Interesting that MXTX used this name for one of the characters who suffers, arguably, the worst of these three emotions.

3. The Qian kun purse “乾坤袋 (qián kūn dài) – can be called “Heaven and Earth” Pouch. In Buddhism, Maitreya (मैत्रेय) owns this to store items. It was believed that there was a mythical space inside the bag that could absorb the world.” (TWX)
I'm going to do two history threads on Ethiopia, one on its ancient history, one on its modern story (1800 to today). 🇪🇹

I'll begin with the ancient history ... and it goes way back. Because modern humans - and before that, the ancestors of humans - almost certainly originated in Ethiopia. 🇪🇹 (sub-thread):


The first likely historical reference to Ethiopia is ancient Egyptian records of trade expeditions to the "Land of Punt" in search of gold, ebony, ivory, incense, and wild animals, starting in c 2500 BC 🇪🇹


Ethiopians themselves believe that the Queen of Sheba, who visited Israel's King Solomon in the Bible (c 950 BC), came from Ethiopia (not Yemen, as others believe). Here she is meeting Solomon in a stain-glassed window in Addis Ababa's Holy Trinity Church. 🇪🇹


References to the Queen of Sheba are everywhere in Ethiopia. The national airline's frequent flier miles are even called "ShebaMiles". 🇪🇹
प्राचीन काल में गाधि नामक एक राजा थे।उनकी सत्यवती नाम की एक पुत्री थी।राजा गाधि ने अपनी पुत्री का विवाह महर्षि भृगु के पुत्र से करवा दिया।महर्षि भृगु इस विवाह से बहुत प्रसन्न हुए और उन्होने अपनी पुत्रवधु को आशीर्वाद देकर उसे कोई भी वर मांगने को कहा।


सत्यवती ने महर्षि भृगु से अपने तथा अपनी माता के लिए पुत्र का वरदान मांगा।ये जानकर महर्षि भृगु ने यज्ञ किया और तत्पश्चात सत्यवती और उसकी माता को अलग-अलग प्रकार के दो चरू (यज्ञ के लिए पकाया हुआ अन्न) दिए और कहा कि ऋतु स्नान के बाद तुम्हारी माता पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर पीपल का आलिंगन...

...करें और तुम भी पुत्र की इच्छा लेकर गूलर वृक्ष का आलिंगन करना। आलिंगन करने के बाद चरू का सेवन करना, इससे तुम दोनो को पुत्र प्राप्ति होगी।परंतु मां बेटी के चरू आपस में बदल जाते हैं और ये महर्षि भृगु अपनी दिव्य दृष्टि से देख लेते हैं।

भृगु ऋषि सत्यवती से कहते हैं,"पुत्री तुम्हारा और तुम्हारी माता ने एक दुसरे के चरू खा लिए हैं।इस कारण तुम्हारा पुत्र ब्राह्मण होते हुए भी क्षत्रिय सा आचरण करेगा और तुम्हारी माता का पुत्र क्षत्रिय होकर भी ब्राह्मण सा आचरण करेगा।"
इस पर सत्यवती ने भृगु ऋषि से बड़ी विनती की।


सत्यवती ने कहा,"मुझे आशीर्वाद दें कि मेरा पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करे।"तब महर्षि ने उसे ये आशीर्वाद दे दिया कि उसका पुत्र ब्राह्मण सा ही आचरण करेगा किन्तु उसका पौत्र क्षत्रियों सा व्यवहार करेगा। सत्यवती का एक पुत्र हुआ जिसका नाम जम्दाग्नि था जो सप्त ऋषियों में से एक हैं।