Here we go again. I don’t know what is going on with women and sports, but we seem determined to make the whole thing as complicated as humanly possible. This time it’s Rutgers, where the women’s club rugby team has decided it needs a new name: Rutgers Womxn’s Rugby.

Womxn.

Good grief. We can’t even get through the name of the team before things start getting stupid.

For the record, this is a Rutgers club team, not an NCAA varsity team. There’s a difference. But don’t dismiss it as harmless campus silliness. This stuff starts somewhere, and today’s club nonsense has a way of becoming tomorrow’s policy.

Hi @RutgersU and @RutgersRugby‼️

🔴Women will get hurt by this‼️
🔴Women might get killed by this‼️

And YOU are to blame, when you let MEN enter women’s rugby‼️

Have a look at this video‼️

https://t.co/sv9NL03Rzr

— TERFs ‘r’ us ©️ (@Terfs_R) September 28, 2026

Rutgers says the name change reflects the club’s commitment to creating a “welcoming, inclusive and supportive environment” where every player feels “valued and represented.”

There are those magic words again.

“Welcoming, inclusive and supportive” has become the Beanie Baby of institutional language. Everybody has to collect them, and apparently no organization can be caught without the complete set.

Wasn’t That The Point?

Except women’s sports already had a reason for existing. Women fought for equal opportunities to compete, and Title IX helped blow those doors open. Now, after decades of building women’s athletics, we’re apparently supposed to believe the word women itself isn’t welcoming enough.

And this isn’t happening in a vacuum. Earlier this year, USA Rugby created three categories: Men’s, Women’s and Open. The Women’s Division is reserved for athletes who were female at birth. The Open Division is exactly what it sounds like: anybody can play.

That wasn’t good enough for some in the rugby community. Rugby for All actually called on every women’s club in the country to abandon the Women’s Division and move to Open.

There seems to be an activist group for every niche these days. If you want to make some money, start an activist group.

But I have a message for Rugby for All: We already had sports for all. We had men’s sports and women’s sports. Everybody had somewhere to play. We didn’t need to erase the lines between the two to make sports “inclusive.”

Think about where we’ve landed. Women’s sports finally have a category specifically reserved for women, plus an Open category where everybody else can play, and some women’s rugby organizations are fighting to get themselves out of the Women’s category.

At some point, women have to stop helping erase their own sports.

So What The Heck Is A Womxn?

Naturally, I had to find out where this word came from, and somehow the explanation makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

According to my Google search, feminists were using womyn in the 1970s, partly to get the M-A-N and M-E-N out of woman and women. But womyn eventually became associated with feminists who excluded transgender women, and the word itself started being criticized as transphobic.

So along came womxn, with the X meant to signal inclusion of transgender and nonbinary people.

We are so dumb. Feminists changed women to womyn because they wanted to take the men out of the word. Then a newer group of feminists came along and decided womyn wasn’t inclusive enough. So they changed it again to womxn.

Basically, the feminists got out-feministed.

What Is The Women’s Team For?

Keep moving the line and eventually somebody will tell you that you’re on the wrong side of it.

I’m not much of a sports watcher, and I couldn’t tell you the first thing about rugby. But all of this does make me wonder: if women’s sports are so determined to get rid of the very thing that makes them women’s sports, why do we need a women’s rugby team in the first place?

Which brings us back to Rutgers. What exactly did changing Women’s Rugby to Womxn’s Rugby accomplish?

Put the E back. Women is not a dirty word.

Feature Image: AI-generated illustration.