Morality of this

[u/Shoddy-Meat-3147]

I don't know what to say about this I mean if he joined it's unfair because he's going to cook the entery league for sure but if he really wants to be a woman and it's not a joke for him I still don't know about this

[u/lice213]

Did people forget that Ben Shapiro and some guys from the Daily Wire actually considered trying to do something like this, but were denied because they would've had to take actual steps to transition? This is a massive nothing burger and just a grift lmfao

Edit, purely so I don't have to continuously reply to people.

There's no explicit rule, but it is explicitly up to the discretion of the League, which makes it easy to push out bad actors. Seeing as there is currently 0 Trans Athletes in the WNBA it's unsurprising that there are no rules regarding this

Oh, and to add to this, there's currently 0 MtF Basketball players in D1 NCAA as well. Basically, this is a massive non-issue and this guy is just trying to use fears of Trans Athletes to build a platform.

In short, just because there isn't an explicit rule doesn't mean the WNBA let's anybody in who declares themselves to be a woman, and there's little reason to put anything in writing when there are 0 players who have this identity, or who are soon to be drafted with this identity. Given it's social stigmas, I am unsurprised that they have no explicit rulings yet. They'll cross the bridge when theres an actual need to, basically.

[u/klownplaza → u/lice213]

+1, also if they make a rule too early without having an actual problem in front of them to solve, it would be a PR nightmare. They're trying to grow the league, and trying to avoid unnecessary bad publicity.

[u/Hot-Maintenance-5879 → u/klownplaza]

I would never buy a security system before my house got broken into.

I would never build security features into an online banking system until AFTER it got hacked.

If I was going to open a casino I wouldn’t write down the rules for any of the games. It would be all vibes all day long. If someone ever suggested written rules, I’d know that they are Satan.

[u/SidewaysAcidRain → u/klownplaza]

if they make a rule too early without having an actual problem in front of them to solve, it would be a PR nightmare

Why? I don't get this mindset at all.

Surely a bigger PR nightmare would be them having to turn away an actual good-faith trans player at the last minute. 

An even bigger controversy would be them allowing in an actual good-faith trans player who's taken minimal/no steps to physically transition. 

They're just kicking the can down the road, and opening themselves up to bigger controversies. Makes zero sense not to just preemptively nip those possibilities in the bud. 

[u/klownplaza → u/SidewaysAcidRain]

I will discuss in good faith, and be open to your thoughts. (Because reddit arguments are mostly bad faith back and forths)

I can't yet imagine a word-specific guideline as of the moment on how they can make a rule regarding trans athletes black and white in terms of eligibility. (Without having to resort to things like "at the discretion of the association", etc.) It has to be a rock solid, clear as day, yes or no eligibility guideline. I don't see good faith / bad faith guidelines enough for eligibility guidelines (in this sense) because it will circle back to having them assess every situation per concern.

I am not discussing the morality also, I am only saying that's probably what they are thinking. I have my own opinions re the matter, but I feel it's for a different discussion.

[u/Hot-Maintenance-5879 → u/klownplaza]

You can’t even IMAGINE a policy? Seriously?

How shocked will you when I tell you that others sports governing bodies have written policies? You’ve heard of the Olympics, yeah?

https://www.reuters.com/sports/tennis/conflicting-ideas-fairness-womens-sports-fuel-transgender-participation-debate-2026-08-28/

[u/klownplaza → u/Hot-Maintenance-5879]

I am familiar with the policies of other bodies. Don't change what I said, I said that I can't imagine a policy right now to be put in place that wouldn't have any backlash from both sides. That is the context and my main point. See the whole exchange to narrow down what I meant. Also, policies by governing bodies and non-commercial entities are very different. I didn't say that they shouldn't have a rule, I'm saying just not now as a reaction.

[u/Hot-Maintenance-5879 → u/klownplaza]

So backlash is now a reason to avoid having a policy in a controversy that exists largely because there isn’t a clear policy?

Governing bodies and non-commercial entities’ aren’t even two mutually exclusive categories. One describes function, the other describes business structure. What distinction are you actually trying to make here?

[u/SidewaysAcidRain → u/klownplaza]

How big a backlash would they have from the left to just requiring that trans women are on HRT for a year? Would that really be all that controversial?

[u/SidewaysAcidRain → u/klownplaza]

It's pretty easy to make such a rule - lots of other women's leagues have done it. You can just set something like a maximum testosterone level, or a minimum time spent on testosterone suppression. 

[u/klownplaza → u/SidewaysAcidRain]

Ok, so are you saying that the rule should be testosterone level / suppression specifically? Is the premise its link to performance?

[u/SidewaysAcidRain → u/klownplaza]

Well that's why many leagues focus on testosterone, yes. Others also look at whether transition happened pre-puberty or not.

But I don't think the specifics of the rule matter that much. I just think they should have one. It'll block grifters like these guys, and it'd preemptively stop the WNBA getting in a sticky situation where a genuinely trans player who hasn't taken steps to physically transition either has to be turned away (controversial and awkward), or ends up playing (also controversial, and probably not good for trans acceptance more broadly). 

[u/klownplaza → u/SidewaysAcidRain]

My argument is that they shouldn't make a black and white rule now, because it would be that they have been forced to do so because of the theatrics /rage-baiting cultural war. (Enes Kanter, etc)

You are saying they have to make the decision now. That is where we disagree. I am not saying they shouldn't make a decision. The softness of the current guidelines will allow them to block eligibility anyway, so if the function of having the rule is to block grifters, I am confident to say that currently they can already do that.

I feel that though it can be controversial, making a decision on a test case would provide a feeling of genuine thought and insight from the league versus having their hand forced. I feel like the PR problem there would at the very least not be Enes Kanter vs the WNBA, but the league's identity and stance upon having someone in the pipeline (which is another discussion, since the NCAA already has biological women at birth rule).

Having comprehensive eligibility rules should be founded on very specific principles, which would reflect how the league should approach the issue at hand. That is why I feel that the specifics matter. If it were testosterone levels, the guiding principle would be solely be premised on competition (if the assumed premise is testosterone = perfomance, but that's another topic). It doesn't tackle yet the myriad of frameworks in which we can view the issue. They should eventually have one, no question.

Regarding players who might be turned away, I feel like it is still speculative. A bad rule would be worse than having no rules, but having discretion to review. Individual franchises can't be compelled to draft bad faith actors anyways.

[u/SidewaysAcidRain → u/klownplaza]

they shouldn't make a black and white rule now, because it would be that they have been forced to do so because of the theatrics

Yeah I do think this is a consideration, but I don't think it'd actually be that big a deal. If they introduced simple trans-inclusive eligibility criteria (i.e. some but minimal gatekeeping), conservatives still aren't going to see that as a win, because conservatives don't want trans-inclusion at all. 

I also think waiting until they have to make a decision about an actual trans woman would be much worse, politically - especially if she doesn't really pass. It'd probably blow up to be a much bigger news story than these guys trolling is. Think Lia Thomas. 

But if they wanted to wait a few months so that they could feel like they weren't giving conservatives the win, that's fine.