Unless a miracle happens it looks like I won't be following the WER this season.
The first season was such a fun experience. My mom and I had season tickets and we had a blast. It was such a welcoming and positive atmosphere.
But I have no interest in supporting a league that would promote itself as inclusive and LGBTQ friendly then immediately throw trans players under the bus at the earliest convenience.
I'll continue keeping tabs on the story if it continues to unfold, but just a heads up to not expect anything else outta this blog until the league apologizes and reverses their decisions.
The Unsettled Law and Selective Ban Haunting Women’s Elite Rugby | News Your Scrumhalf Connection - Women's Rugby News
The Unsettled Law and Selective Ban Haunting Women’s Elite Rugby
April 24, 2026by Wendy Young
On May 2nd, the lights will go up at Veteran’s Memorial Stadium for a highly anticipated rematch: the Boston Banshees vs. the New York Exiles. It is a clash forged in the fire of last year’s controversial penalty try, a storyline that should be the sole focus of every rugby fan in the country.
But as we enter Year 2 of Women’s Elite Rugby (WER), the team sheets tell a story of exclusion rather than evolution. While the league moves forward, a silent eviction has taken place. The transgender pioneers who didn’t just play in the Women’s Premier League (WPL) but actively built the infrastructure for WER to exist have been barred. They aren’t just missing from the match-day roster; they have been removed from the culture itself.
The Policy Disparity: Rebuttable Presumption vs. Absolute Ban
The justification cited by leadership is the requirement to follow the new USA Rugby (USAR) gender eligibility policy. However, a look at the dirt on the boots reveals a startling discrepancy in how that policy is being applied.
This very weekend, the USA Rugby Club Super Regionals are kicking off across the country, alongside the College Rugby Association of America (CRAA) 7s National Championships. In these matches, transgender women are on the pitch, competing alongside their teammates in sanctioned, national-level competition. This is possible because the USA Rugby policy for the amateur game operates on a “rebuttable presumption.”
Under this standard, the NGB presumes an athlete’s eligibility based on their registration. For an athlete to be removed, a formal, sworn challenge must be filed and a deliberate administrative process must unfold. Until that specific trigger is pulled, the community remains whole. WER, however, has bypassed this entire process of due process and presumption, opting instead for a blanket exclusion before a single whistle has blown.
When asked why this “rebuttable presumption” hasn’t been extended to the professional level, USA Rugby distanced itself from the league’s decision. “We can’t speak on behalf of WER and implementation of their policies,” a USAR spokesperson stated. They clarified that even at the elite level, the mechanism for exclusion should be administrative, noting that “if a formal grievance is submitted regarding athlete eligibility, USA Rugby would be obligated to review accordingly.” This confirms a startling reality: WER has not been forced into a blanket ban by the NGB. Instead, they have pre-emptively volunteered for it, bypassing the very grievance process USAR still views as the official standard for eligibility disputes.
Risk Mitigation over Community Values
WER is a business, and like any business in a Series A raise, it is beholden to its stakeholders. The league has recently bolstered its leadership with “proven operators” and board members from firms like Goddess Gaia Ventures. These are entities that prioritize durable business models and mitigated risk.
In this environment, legal teams and risk-averse investors often give the same advice: remove the variable to remove the liability. By implementing a blanket ban, the Board is betting that a “clean” legal profile is more valuable to their Series A round than the diversity the league was founded on. They are treating the exclusion of trans athletes as a routine corporate safety measure.
However, this is a fundamental miscalculation of the values that drive this sport. People find rugby and find a home. They find a community and a safe place where they make sense, even when they might not have made sense anywhere else. This goes beyond the specific exclusion of trans players. Rugby players are a different breed. We are a community built on the idea that there is a jersey for every body and a place for every soul.
When the Board treats athletes as liabilities to be mitigated, they aren’t just protecting a profit margin. They are dismantling the very culture that makes rugby a viable product. They are betting that an “Elite” brand can survive without the soul of its community. It is a corporate solution for a community that prides itself on being anything but corporate.
Dismantling the “Settled Law” Myth
Both USA Rugby and WER are currently treating Executive Order 14201 as settled law. They are operating as if their hands are tied by a federal mandate that leaves no room for discretion. This is a legal mischaracterization.
While Presidents have used Executive Orders for decades to guide policy, they have recently become a tool for rapid social engineering. However, an EO is not a statute passed by Congress or a final ruling from the Supreme Court. It is an administrative directive that can be struck down by a court or instantly erased by the next President with a single stroke of a pen.
USA Rugby’s own justification for the policy shift adds another layer of complexity. According to USAR, they are not acting directly on the EO but rather on a mandate set by the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) policy. USAR admits that while the USOPC felt pressure from the administration to align with the order, the NGB only acted once the USOPC required compliance. This creates a game of regulatory telephone where the original legal directive is being filtered through multiple sports bureaucracies. Each layer adds its own level of risk aversion until it reaches WER, which then applies it with a severity that far exceeds the original intent.
In an official statement to this author, WER leadership clarified their stance: “WER recognizes the impact of U.S. Executive Order 14201 on USA Rugby and, as a sanctioned women’s league, is subject to the policy.” While the league adds that they “do not agree with the policy change,” their actions speak louder than their moral objections. By treating a contested and unproven executive order as an absolute mandate, they are choosing regulatory “alignment” over the legal discretion they still possess.
It should also be noted that on April 15, 2026, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Female Athletes United v. Ellison that directly challenges the WER Board’s narrative. The court stated that these federal directives do not reflect settled law. They are, in essence, temporary guidance currently being tested in the fires of the judicial system.
By treating these EOs as an absolute legal shield, WER is choosing corporate convenience over the protection of its athletes. They are pretending their hands are tied by a knot that hasn’t even been tightened yet. Inclusion remains a legally viable choice, and the Board’s refusal to acknowledge this proves they are prioritizing political optics over the actual legal landscape.
The Litigation Paradox: The Risk of Unlawful Exclusion
While the league claims this ban is a defensive move to avoid legal trouble, the reality is exactly the opposite. WER is so afraid of administrative pressure that they have walked into a civil rights trap.
The federal government does not sue professional sports leagues for being inclusive. They use the blunt instrument of decertification to force compliance from National Governing Bodies like USA Rugby. But the actual legal threat to WER as a private professional entity would be coming from the players.
The board is claiming they are protecting the league from the law, but they are the ones creating the liability. As seen in the ongoing litigation within the fencing community, the primary legal risk today is not from the government for allowing play. It is from the athletes for unlawful exclusion. In the case of Yukich v. USA Fencing, the organization found that “aligning” with federal directives did not protect them from state-level civil rights lawsuits. By enforcing a blanket ban based on a contested executive order, WER has moved from a position of administrative compliance to a position of active legal liability. They are essentially misleading the community by suggesting their hands are tied when they are the ones tying the knots.
The Sanctioning Mandate: Institutional Status vs. Individual Risk
The most frequent defense for the current ban is the requirement for USA Rugby sanctioning. Fans and local clubs often ask why WER cannot simply operate as an independent entity, much like National Collegiate Rugby (NCR) does at the university level. The answer lies in the difference between a community league and a professional pathway.
In March 2025, WER formalized a sanctioning agreement with USA Rugby to ensure alignment with World Rugby’s professional standards. This agreement is not merely a partnership; it is a regulatory requirement for a league that seeks to be the recognized pathway for the National Team.
However, the actual risk of going unsanctioned does not fall on the brand. It falls on the people. For the league as an entity, the risk is largely administrative. For the individuals on the pitch and the sidelines, the risk is professional exile.
The High Performance Hammer
Unlike NCR, which exists as a separate ecosystem for amateur student athletes, WER is positioned as the gateway to the Eagles. Under World Rugby regulations, participating in an “unrecognized” or unsanctioned competition is not just a social choice; it is a disqualifying one.
While a league could technically survive a season without a sanctioned sticker, the individuals within it would likely face immediate consequences. Coaches and athletes who participate in unrecognized professional competitions can face suspension from the National Team pathway and World Rugby sanctioned environments. By choosing a blanket ban to preserve its official status, WER is effectively using the professional futures of its own architects as leverage to secure its standing in the global game.
The Open Division: A Professional Dead End
In response to the policy shifts of early 2026, USA Rugby introduced a third category called the Open Division. This division allows athletes of all gender identities to compete and theoretically offers a sanctioned space for everyone. To the casual observer, this seems like an easy fix. If WER wants to be inclusive, why not simply register as an Open Division competition? The reality is that the Open Division exists outside the sanctioned high performance pathway. Because World Rugby and USA Rugby only recognize the Women’s Division for international scouting and caps, moving to the Open Division would effectively sever the link between the league and the Eagles. It would relegate every athlete on the pitch to exhibition status, regardless of their talent or aspirations.
The Liability of the “Catch-All”
By its very nature, an Open Division removes the ability of a league to set sex-based or gender-based standards. While the Board appears to be avoiding lawsuits by excluding trans women, joining the Open Division actually opens a much wider legal door.
If WER were to operate as an Open Division, they would lose the primary legal defense they currently use to maintain a protected women’s space. This could invite bad actors, specifically cisgender men, to attempt to join the league under the banner of inclusivity. If the league were to then deny those individuals, they would be vulnerable to sex-discrimination lawsuits that they currently avoid by maintaining a single-sex designation. The Open Division effectively strips the league of its protected category status. It makes the league a legal catch-all where the Board loses control over the integrity of the rosters.
The Precedent of Erasure: Lessons from the Fencing Community
This choice has a dark precedent. Beyond the Eighth Circuit, the legal map is a patchwork of contradictions. While some jurisdictions struggle with new mandates, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has historically defended the right of athletes to participate. The conflict in cases like B.P.J. v. West Virginia State and Little v. Hecox proves that the requirement to exclude is actually an elective policy.
We must also look at the human cost of this choice. We have seen athletes in other sports win their legal battles only to be driven from the game by a relentless tide of threats and social exile. In a landmark case for the sport of fencing, Eden Goreloy successfully fought for an inclusive policy that guaranteed her right to compete. However, a wave of public targeting and coordinated harassment followed. This proved that a legal victory is hollow if the institution fails to protect the athlete. This environment eventually forced her out of the sport entirely.
When WER proactively removes trans athletes from the safety of the training pitch and the film room, they are validating that erasure. They are signaling that the league would rather disappear a teammate than protect one. When the board chooses the safety of exclusion, they are simply finishing the work of the bullies.
The Power of the Pitch: Community Leverage
We have seen this before. History is full of corporate mandates that were rolled back when the community made the cost of exclusion too high. After Target chose to dump their DEI policy and pull inclusive merchandise to avoid controversy, they faced a massive drop in foot traffic and a backlash from their most loyal consumer base. They quickly learned that trying to appease everyone by excluding some is a recipe for financial ruin.
Corporate giants only pivot when the consumer base speaks in the only language they understand: engagement. Just as the WNBA players successfully leveraged their collective voice to force a historic new pay agreement from their league’s stakeholders, the rugby community holds the power to decide the fate of this league.
The Strategic Path Forward
The primary path forward is clear. USA Rugby should prioritize the integrity of the rugby community over administrative pressure from the USOPC and the shifting landscape of executive orders. By recognizing that Executive Order 14201 is not settled law, USAR can restore full inclusion across all levels of the game. As a sanctioned partner, WER should follow suit, choosing the values of the sport over the convenience of regulatory alignment.
However, if WER leadership cannot find the political will for a full policy reversal, they must at least acknowledge that a middle path exists. In their official statements, WER claims they will “actively work to ensure inclusion both on and off the pitch” and has asked the community to “hold them accountable.”
Accountability must mean more than action steps on a website. If the league truly “does not agree” with the policy, it should not be exceeding the mandate by barring athletes from the community life of their teams. A secondary harm reduction strategy starts with separating match-day eligibility from team participation. Inclusion off the pitch means welcoming trans players back to the training pitch, team events, and film rooms as active, recognized members of the environment.
USA Rugby has confirmed that a model similar to the Club and CRAA organizations is entirely within the league’s power. When asked if WER players could be brought into alignment with the more inclusive standards of the amateur game, USAR deferred to the league’s own agency. By refusing to take ownership of the professional ban, USA Rugby has confirmed that the social exile currently being enforced is a WER elective, not a sanctioning requirement.
By ending this elective policy of social exile, the Board can prove they are interested in player safety rather than athlete disappearance. They have the power to manage the administrative hurdles of sanctioning without participating in the personal destruction of their own players. The first choice is inclusion. The minimum choice is harm reduction. Any other path is a choice to prioritize corporate optics over human beings.
We missed the mark on the jersey designs. Thank you for your feedback and for continuing to push this league forward.
We’re on the bench reflecting and working on some updates 🫡
I’m going to post about this here too, as I was one of many who spoke against Women’s Elite Rugby about this.
In 2026, the rugby world has almost completely banned trans women from playing the sport in gendered games. (In USA rugby, the “open gender” league allows anyone to play, and most women’s teams have now switched to the open bracket so that their trans teammates can continue playing).
Women’s Elite Rugby, the very new women’s pro rugby league here in the United States, is one of the groups who has banned trans women from playing.
Do you see how ugly those jerseys are? Do you notice that there is little consistency within the designs? Do you notice that the Denver one is covered in dicks? Do you notice that they used male models for these jerseys in a sport that is intended for women that also openly and explicitly bans trans women from participating?
It’s so disgusting, honestly. It’s insulting on the most basic level. An entire organization dedicated to professional women’s sports cannot even bother to model their jerseys on women. But if a trans woman with a body shape like the ones pictured above wants to play at the professional level, she cannot because she may hurt the other women!
The hatred and bias against women in sports is so deeply ingrained into our society, that organizations of women’s professional sports cannot even figure out how to truly center women. They center the fears of men about who can play women’s rugby, and not the desires of the players (almost all women’s rugby players at every level welcome and actively want the participation of trans women in the sport). They default so often to men that they even demo the jerseys on a male body. They then take 2 full days to figure out that it was a gigantic PR mistake to release mock ups of their jerseys on male models.
The infuriating part of it is that it feels as if there is no escape. The women’s rugby spaces that I have been in are so queer and so welcoming to people of all types. It’s frustrating to then watch a (much anticipated) professional league build out of this beautifully inclusive space, only for that league to be bigoted, exclusive, and not about the women playing the game. And “women” is in the name of the league.
We believe that WER can do the right thing and return to the values the league was founded on - respect, integrity, and inclusion.
If you believe the same, call on them to do what the rugby community wants them to do — execute a truly inclusive league.
We cannot allow WER to turn its back on the community that helped create it — the queer community.
We want to be clear, we don’t agree with this policy change.
Rugby is at its best when it’s open to everyone, and we believe deeply in creating pathways that keep people in the game, not push them out.
We’ve been taking actions to back that up. We’ve outlined steps to reinforce our commitment to inclusion, and we invite our athletes, fans, and community to read them, challenge us, and hold us accountable.
Read more in the link
-------------
-------------
WER on some bullshit!
Let's let them know what we think of them and of their decision to capitulate to transphobia.
We believe that WER can do the right thing and return to the values the league was founded on - respect, integrity, and inclusion.
If you believe the same, call on them to do what the rugby community wants them to do — execute a truly inclusive league.
We cannot allow WER to turn its back on the community that helped create it — the queer community.
We missed the mark on the jersey designs. Thank you for your feedback and for continuing to push this league forward.
We’re on the bench reflecting and working on some updates 🫡
