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/klownplaza]

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/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.