1/ Thread: there is a lot to say about this irresponsible statement, but I have an appointment with the Col du Peyresourde tomorrow. So I'll just point out one element https://twitter.com/RugbyCanada/status/1301565701149331457

2/ Rugby Canada's submission says they included "documented *lived experiences* of Canadian rugby trans participants"

My question: what *status* do these "lived experiences" have in trying to sort out an ethical policy? How should it feed into the policy process?

3/ Trans women players will presumably have said the following things:
A 'I get a great deal out of playing rugby, and it is important to my sense of well-being.' This is fair enough, and uncontested. Everyone accepts this.

4/ They may also have said these things:
B: I think it is fair for me to play women's rugby
C: I think it is safe for me to play women's rugby

If they did, those views should count for nothing. It is a category mistake to think that fairness and safety are matters of "lived

5/ experience" in this way: those reported experiences are *irrelevant* to the question being considered. I don't care whether someone *thinks* they pose a higher risk or not. I care whether they do, which is an objective matter. @rugbycanada should attend to the science.

6/ And notice an asymmetry here. Those who are harmed now by the policy are identifiable, and outspoken. They have lived experiences to report. Those who are benefited by the policy: women and girls, in the future, who are able to play safe and fair rugby are not identifiable

7/in advance, and do not have lived experiences to report. And those who are harmed if the policy is not changed: those put at increased risk, injured, perhaps catastrophically, in the future do not yet, but will have lived experiences to report.

8/ But by then it will be too late.