Unless you're going to measure the muscle mass and hormone output of every single woman that steps foot on a pitch, this is a transphobic take that rests on vital misunderstandings about how biological sex affects anyone's body, and how transwomen exist in the world. 1/ https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1317157370045358081

Before I start, this content is paywalled. I am able to read the first two paragraphs only. Engaging with the ideas in those parts in this thread. Also worth noting this article was is titled "Letting trans women play in women’s sports is often unfair" 2/

It's a good idea for them to change the title on the link, which they appear to have done. This is full of qualifying language that clearly turns this into an opinion piece, though it does not appear to be labeled as such. "Often" and "unfair" are completely subjective terms. 3/

The underlying idea here is that cis women emerge into sport if not the world somehow biologically equal. Having played this sport, let me tell you we are not. Some of us played for years, some just started. Some of us were mysteriously prone to be stronger than others. 4/

Some were faster. This very difference in people is what creates a rugby team, what creates the culture of women's rugby that we so value, where everyone has a place and something to contribute. A team is not one person, and it is not their gender. 5/

I am a cis woman and at the peak of my rugby career I was arm wrestling and tackling men. I injured a player one time, by accident, by dropping her too soon from a line-out. My point is, you would never say ALL men are stronger than ALL women. 6/

You wouldn't say stronger women are more likely to injure players.

Instead you say "there are biological differences," there is the "capacity" for greater muscle mass due to testosterone in puberty.

And these turn into "ALL transwomen cannot play." 7/

Transwomen are all kinds of women, is the thing. They're ~biodiverse~. Biological "capacity" is not the same as reality. Biological difference is a fact of life and a thing that generates hundreds if not thousands of differences in people. 8/

These sorts of decisions hinge on stereotypes of transwomen as hulking and terrifying, as threats to cis women by their very existence. They're the baseline for bathroom bills in the sates, and all kinds of discrimination and exclusion of transwomen. 9/

It also suggests the place for them is in men's rugby, or not in rugby at all. These decisions don't protect women. They patronize ciswomen and they put transwomen actively in danger.

But you know, as a sport, that's pretty on track for women's rugby. 10/

The most dangerous games I have ever played were dangerous because of pitch conditions, untrained refs, untrained players, or bad coaches. The worst rugby injury I got I received from a new, untrained player who should not have been in a league game. 11/

The worst injury I ever saw came right after a ref refused to stop play after one of our players went down with a broken ankle. I made eye contact with him and begged him to call off play so we could get her off the pitch. He shook his head, and I watched behind him 12/

while my teammate broke her leg in two places. He later said he wouldn't stop play bc he thought she was exaggerating.

If you want to keep women's rugby "safe" start there. Make sure we have access to the same facilities as quality of training as men do. 13/

But I don't think this is at all about keeping women's sports "fair" or "safe." Rugby is a painful and violent sport, and for women specifically is can be thankless outside of providing camaraderie and community. 14/

This article, what I can read of it, prioritizes the "tone" of this decision, stating, "World Rugby brought scientists, ethicists, athletes and lawyers together in person, to present calmer arguments directly to the sport’s administrators." 15/

I wonder if they asked transwomen. I wonder if the tone of the proceedings really matters at all, outside of the comfort of those in power. 16/

Here is an interesting quote on the state of "domestic" play, from the Times article linked below:
"Transgender women will be permitted to continue playing in domestic women’s rugby after the RFU decided that further scientific evidence was required before implementing a ban."17/

So transwomen cannot represent England because of science, but they can play domestically bc of a LACK of science. Very interesting. 18/

Another quote to take note of from the economist:

"Trans women competitors have enjoyed success in sports including weightlifting, cycling and athletics."

Why bring this up. "Trans women are good at sports." Great. Let them play. 19/

Another note:

"It puts World Rugby at odds with the International Olympic Committee (ioc), whose rules allow trans women to compete in women’s Olympic events, and with several other sports that have followed the ioc’s guidance." 20/

This is phrased in a way that really buries the lede. What this should say is, "World Rugby became the first international sports governing body to rule that trans women could no longer play elite women’s rugby." 21/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-rfu-ban-on-trans-women-in-community-game-despite-world-rugby-ruling-jtlwdlxbv

They are not "at odds" so much as they are setting a dangerous precedent. If this decision sticks, rest assured they did not do it for the safety of women in this sport. 22/