1/ One piece of evidence not discussed as much as it might have been - is the survey evidence that @WorldRugby commissioned. It shows strong opposition to the inclusion of transwomen in the women’s game, from current international women players.

2/ The survey is anonymous, of course, but the results are in the public domain and can be downloaded here https://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?subsection=84  as document 19.

3/ The raw figures show opposition by a bit more than 2:1, but with a high proportion of don’t knows. For example, 46% of women player reject the IOC regulations, but a further 29% are unsure.

4/ However, if you drill down, by looking at the comments, it is pretty clear what the big majority of women players think. The comments are often of a conditional form, saying things like: “If T/hormone levels etc… means it’s fair for TW to compete, then it’s fine by me.”

5/ The women players ask all the right questions: one presumably ‘don’t know’ says:

6/ “I’m not entirely sure of the science around how much testosterone has physiological benefits prior to the date that hormone therapy starts. As in does the benefit of testosterone through puberty have a significant and long lasting implication?”

7/ We know that the answer to this is yes, it does, so I think it’s reasonable to attribute to this ‘don’t know’ athlete the *presumed* view that it’s not fair for TW to compete against women

8/ There was no-one saying (as far as I could see) “Well, even if there is an advantage, it’s OK, because it's important that people are able to affirm their gender identity.” No women player takes the 'retreat position' urged by transactivists...

9/ in response to all the science coming through.

I read this stuff not as a social scientist but with an interest in the *status* of such view and opinions. (Perhaps some social scientists want to have a dig around in the survey) All this corroborates ...

10/ the work done by @cathydevine56 on the views of Olympians, reported here: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jun/12/olympians-ioc-transgender-guidelines

11/ The Ivy/Conrad paper in Philosophical Topics goes to some lengths to deny *any status at all* to the views of current women athletes. Instead we are to abstract to the original position - somehow - [I've shown previously here how that argument fails completely]

12/ But my forthcoming paper gives those views some standing. The point is a general one about justice in the distribution of harms.

13/ It seems clear to me that there are harms of increased risk and harms of unfairness that would ‘land’ on women rugby players from the participation of TW in the game.

14/ Is there any good reason to suggest that women players actually *consent* to those harms? (and is there anything that they have done to make them *liable* to them? or to *deserve* them?)

The answer to all these questions is No.