To discuss this:
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53667683
Last thread was pulled, presumably for "misgendering", so be careful with pronouns and so forth, because it's worth discussing.
There's now a wealth of scientific evidence (e.g. recent study by Karolinska institute) to show that transwomen retain enough advantage over natal women to have an unfair competitive edge, and in the case of rugby, to pose a significantly raised risk of injuring other players (best case scenario was about 20 to 30% increased risk according to the recent RFU report.
Yet the BBC keeps running these sob story articles, despite the science being quite clear that it is both unsafe and unfair towards women.
It was pointed out that these articles often feature very slightly built trans-women (one assumes to garner sympathy). But even so, people who've been through male puberty but then transition remain significantly stronger than women even if, compared to a men's rugby team, they look skinny and slight.
Someone on the last thread made this comment a propos of slimly built men.
Purely anecdotal, but my 2 youngest brothers are like rakes and only a tiny bit taller than me. Both still as strong as an Ox though, because of male puberty. I have no doubt they'd destroy me in a physical game of anything. Looking at them, you'd think they weigh about 8 stone wringing wet, but they're heavy.
My sport used to be climbing. I've known several husband-wife climbing partnerships where the woman was by far the better technical climber, but the man climbed harder just because he was stronger. One pair in particular stick in my memory, where, having watched the woman lead an overhanging E3 on limestone, I discovered she couldn't do a single pull-up of her own body weight. He, on the other hand, could do pull ups (from a finger edge, not a bar) until he gave up from sheer boredom. He was a very slightly built bloke, too, and about an inch shorter than her.