WNBA...should they define "Woman"?

[Immanuel Can]

As you probably all know, the WNBA has a "catch 22."

If they allow "trans" athletes on the basis of nothing more than their own self-identification, they're going to destroy women's professional basketball, because men can dominate. But if they don't allow "trans" athletes, their ideological commitments will have been betrayed, and they may even have to fess up to having trans males already in the league, in some cases.

So far, the WNBA has opted not to define "woman." What should they do?

[Walker]

It's brilliant.

The agnostics of sex can't ignore their own self-created conundrum.

What the league does will define what they had to do and then the question is, why did they have to do it?
No matter what they do, all kinds of justifications will pop up ... including blaming the whole situation on Trump.

[Immanuel Can]

This is interesting. The women's rights advocates don't seem to be present here.

I guess they didn't really mean it.

[Walker]

Maybe they’re in a state of political dysphoria confusion.

Can't really stall, though. Those NBA guys are gonna try out.
Maybe some giant Eastern Europeans.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe they’re in a state of political dysphoria confusion.

They're in the same kind of moral confusion with culture. They don't seem to know what position to advocate relative to things like female "circumcision" and child "brides." They want to be relativistic and pluralistic about other cultures, but stridently moralizing about Western culture. They only care about causes that offer them, personally, advantages and privileges.

If they cared about oppression of women, the very first people they would care about would be the victims of cultural Islamism. But they really only seem to care about things that offer Western women more excessive privileges; not things that have to do with the basic rights of women in other places.

But the WNBA situation is kind of special. It involves privileged, Western women. It asks the league, "Are you really committed to the rights of women, or are you more interested in self-presenting as virtuously trans-tolerant?" And the answer from the WNBA so far seems to be, "Who cares about real women, even Western ones? We only care about preening as tolerant ourselves. Transers are in. Real women can go suck eggs."

Ironically, their idiotic position yields the win to...opportunistic men. Not really a women's rights position, is it?

[Walker]

Ironically, their idiotic position yields the win to...opportunistic men. Not really a women's rights position, is it?

Seizing an opportunity to bash select, opportunistic men is The Party's position, and ways of that is to redefine the sexes, redefine need, and create new concepts such as ... subsidized gender affirming care.

Politics determines which of the opportunists get bashed, and which do not.
It's not a deep determination. All that's required is a D after the name.
This is how Fauci gets a Party Pass.

And, it's easy enough to get all the strong, responsible, patriotic feminists to cover their faces for the common good ... if The Party says so.

What The Party says, is the official women's rights position. And, a Big Tent Party with the primary need and purpose being power by any means necessary, will do and say most anything.

[Walker]

This is interesting. The women's rights advocates don't seem to be present here.

I guess they didn't really mean it.

They’re in Massachusetts, celebrating the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act.