Just to reiterate well-behavedwomen's post from much higher up. I agree I think this is why it has been so easy to set ridiculously exclusionary rules which are so bad for women:
"People instantly consider and sympathise with distressed males. The impact and distress for females just isn't engaged with, and then when those women protest, after the imaginative empathy has already been engaged by the males that protest is instinctively regarded as cruelty."
It's a bit like when a police officer hears one person's version of events and then can't get away from that framing.
All women & girls who play rugby should ask for confirmation from their club that the insurer will cover the costs associated with injury if it involves a male born player, given that the rfu are declining to follow wr's policy which was evidence based - because they think they understand the evidence better. Have the underwriters okayed this?
Any referees should also ask about this given that they have to assess risks in the games they referee, as I understand it.
It sounds like rfu are planning to consult female players. We have to try & make sure there is a full anonymous consultation (including referees) where the players are given proper, plainly worded, information about the policy.
It really should be persued legally too I think. Indirect sex discrimination. A girl/women who is excluded from rugby because she now knows she may come up against a male born player.
I think we should support fpfw. I will when my garden next allows digging (or some other digging metaphor).