Mariah I think the mental prowess you exercise daily will serve you well with the back and forth at the ping pong table. You will be much taller than most of the competitors I saw at nationals. Practice like you did for cornhole and another podium spot is in reach.
Love the vote of confidence! I watched at nationals; all were younger and probably better, but that doesn’t give me a sense of who will show up in my age group - and I have to reach the top four at the Delaware Games first. Thanks! Will keep practicing…
I want to know why the league is unprepared for this. This is a serious question, and I’m dying from curiosity.
Do you remember when that dude went into that California women’s only spa and started hanging around naked in the baths and they couldn’t throw him out because of CA laws? As far as I could tell this was California’s gender identity laws working as intended. This was EXACTLY what they wanted.
But when it actually happened, every article and every Twitter comment - literally all of them - claimed that the incident was fake, that it hadn’t happened. I’m being serious - I read through hundreds of Twitter comments trying to find a single person saying “yes, she’s a transexual and should be there”. No one said that. They all claimed the incident didn’t happen. I’m dying to know why.
Same thing here. This is something - a man joining the WNBA - that was obviously going to happen eventually. It’s the whole POINT. Why is there no procedure in place? Why talk for years and years about transsexuals being welcome in the league, attack and scream at people who are against it, and then the moment it happens look like a deer in the headlights and claim to need to have meetings?
I’m not being rhetorical, I’m not being insulting. I genuinely have no idea how this happened and would love to hear from someone with insight into this.
This is a fair question. I’ll attempt an answer. Schools, states, and sports organizations were all unprepared for the tsunami of demands from the T, the “new gay” people who demanded “trans rights,” because nothing like it has ever happened. Institutions tried to accommodate these demanding people, who, when need be, bullied them into acquiescence. The institutions didn’t understand it. They were played. But they settled for being “on the right side of history” and began to believe that there must be people “born in the wrong body” who need special treatment of all sorts.
Leaders then surrounded themselves with like-minded “be nice” people who were similarly clueless or careless about what trans means and who it hurts (primarily women and kids). They also put trans allies in decision-making roles.
In the case of the WNBA, as I noted in my article, those folks are surrounded by trans-loving fans, players, and sponsors. That bubble of self-righteousness and financial incentive and peer/player/fan pressure blocks out reasonable, fact-based, feminist voices, even when we raise them as loudly and thoughtfully as we can.
Now they’re stuck babbling on about inclusion and “no exclusion” even though they’re well aware of why sports always has two categories, no matter the age level or the weight class or disability type. Everyone with any sort of sports background knows that. (Even Megan Rapinoe.)
Adding to that… there may be males with DSDs already in the league. As there are in the NWSL (soccer). To sex-test, then exclude them, as the WTA (tennis) is willing to do, is almost unthinkable right now. It would cause chaos, boycotts, who knows.
They can do a lot without sex testing - “female from birth” mostly covers it. We offer details in the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group’s model policy and other documents (see our Substack or website).
In sum: Indoctrination and self-interest. It’s hard to see clearly, then be the lone truth-teller, in a “trans women are women” league.
Thank you for your post, but I’d argue in favor of the swab test. Having the same test across sports sets a uniform standard. If there are some in women’s soccer who don’t belong there, they have the option of “retiring” before the test or leaving after the test results are received.
As “trans” activists have amply demonstrated, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Men and women have been speaking truth since the beginning of this sad charade. The WNBA and the rest of the loony troons choose to reject reality and substitute their own.
The two NBA players speaking are having more of an impact not simply because they are men, but because they have power. Power to force this issue out of the rhetorical and into the stark reality of the real world.
The article alludes to these few men taking a stance as the catalyst for the WNBA changing its position. There have been lots of men from many different sectors of society that have spoken truth. These two are different because they have the power to bring this argument to its logical conclusion.
I pray they stand long enough and speak loud enough to move us back towards truth.
I made this exact point and got piled on for it. The WNBA doesn't listen to anyone, they don't have to be profitable so they don't have to appeal to anyone other than their ultra-liberal feminist board and owners. It's a fact that it took two men to force their hand but that's only because the WNBA was terrified of the look of some massive dudes suiting up for a women's game and terrified of the lawsuits if they don't clarify their policies. The WNBA doesn't give "men's voices" more respect, they are just trying to cover their asses.
Same thoughts in my mind. No one listens to the women. It takes the men to speak before EVEN OTHER WOMEN LISTEN! So this isn’t necessarily a pure sexists problem of no one listening to women. Democrats, liberal women and other men don’t listen.
It's not just because they are men that the WNBA reacted, the WNBA ignores everyone. It was only the threat of lawsuits and the idea of a 6'10" male suiting up for a WNBA game that forced them into action. So in a way it was because they're men, but it's just a genetic thing, not because they give men more respect. In fact I think a lot of the WNBA probably doesn't like men in general.
Living in SF for decades gives me lived experience, not credibility. Isn’t “lived experience” the most important concept?
No, I do not hate women generally because they are female. I do not “look down” on them either. I’ve been arguing with and being harassed by “feminists” since at least 1988 in the PC/Woke center of the universe, and I’ve formed some opinions about the issues. I’ve also learned to spot a line of bullshit meant to shut me up and make me feel lesser than because of my XY chromosomes and that’s exactly what you are doing here. “Misogynist” “who’s the weak one?” All a bunch of lame deflection to avoid confronting any opinions you don’t approve of.
For several reasons maybe. Because a lot of them are woke lesbians who are fighting “the patriarchy” but rely on the NBA for their league’s existence? Idk what they’re thinking, there’s just a general anti-man bias among people like that.
No, lesbians don’t necessarily hate men, that’s true. I lived in San Francisco for 33 years and I met numerous lesbians who didn’t hate men, but I also met many who did. It’s just a general attitude among the overly educated woke-like women that men and/or “the patriarchy” are oppressing them. I ran into that idea over and over and over again and again and again, for decades.
How to say you’re a misogynist without saying you’re a misogynist. I’ve seen you trot out the San Francisco thing before - as if it gives you credibility. It doesn’t. You look down on women, but keep coming to discussions like this one, where you’re likely to interact with them. Who’s the weak one?
Living in SF for decades gives me lived experience, not credibility. Isn’t “lived experience” the most important concept? Credibility comes from other people and is earned, no one should declare that they have credibility. That's not what I am claiming.
And no, I do not hate women generally because they are female. I do not “look down” on them either. I do dislike some individual women, but it's not BECAUSE they are women, it's because they are assholes. Being a misogynist would mean hating half of the people on the planet, all 4 billion of them because of their sex. That's a pretty heavy lift in terms of hate!
I’ve been arguing with and being harassed by “feminists” since at least 1988 in the PC/Woke center of the universe, and I’ve formed some opinions about the issues. I’ve also learned to spot a line of bullshit meant to shut me up and make me feel lesser than because of my XY chromosomes and that’s exactly what you are doing here. “Misogynist” “who’s the weak one?” All a bunch of lame deflection to avoid confronting any opinions you don’t approve of.
Sure, oppression of women is ubiquitous in certain parts of the world. What I experienced was educated women with every advantage possible raging about how I was, because of my essential genetic construction, personally somehow accountable for this oppression. I’m not even exaggerating. After a few decades of this, it gets kind of exhausting and resentment sets in.
I really did relish the absurdity of the two men's declarations and the way they exposed the absurdity of this "inclusivity". I wish more male athletes would take a stand like that. I also don't think the WBNA listened to them because they were male per se, but because of the way their claim to eligibility forced them to confront the consequences of their "inclusive" policy in a way women simply cannot do. Question: are there currently any male trans-identified players in the WNBA, or is this so far a theoretical issue?
But both of them are "not even wrong" -- many cells, mostly blood cells if I'm not mistaken, don't even have a nucleus so can't possibly have any chromosomes. Which are presumably what both Yale & NCBI are getting at.
But more damning is that the standard biological definitions -- and even President Trump's EO on Restoring Biological Truth to Government (should do likewise for Yale & NCBI) -- stipulate that to have a sex is to exhibit either oogenesis or spermatogenesis. And absolutely no single cell in the human body, or those of millions of other species, can do that -- ergo, no sex in any cell, only in groups of them as ovaries & testicles, respectively.
Arguably, Royce White has done just that, at least as far as male transvestites in women's sport is concerned ... 😉🙂
Though as far as Yale & the NCBI are concerned, you might have some interest in a similar case where the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
Some reason to argue that that is one of the worst consequences of transgender ideology -- the corruption and bastardization of biology, another egregious case of Lysenkoism.
My open letter to them and a linked article by US biologist Jerry Coyne:
If a woman could compete at the highest level she would be playing in the NBA. The NBA would not ban her. That’s merit based.
The WNBA exists because no woman can. Which is why men shouldn’t be in the WNBA because it is not merit based. You just need to be a woman and be better than other woman.
You need to seriously look at some sports results. Just as one example the women's high jump world record is 6'10.5" the men's record is 8' 0.25" that's FOURTEEN AND A QUARTER INCHES higher than the women's record! Men are generally five inches taller, many pounds heavier, and have roughly 2X the upper body strength of women. Do you really think that any woman could make it in the NBA based on her "merit"? You're delusional.
Oh just fuck off dishing women with “merit based” analogies. I really wish the tennis chicks would line up all the mofos who say women’s sports aren’t merit based and lob some 🎾 balls at them.
You're missing the whole reason for sports categories but I already offered the heavyweight and lightweight boxers analogy and you're persisting in saying that female athletes are not meritorious just because men happen to be stronger, faster, etc... so you don't understand sports and don't respect women. Stop.
As always Mariah, you clearly outline the issue and the underlying problem: women are sometimes their own worst enemy. Why did we fight so hard for women's rights only to surrender them?
I've not read your material before, but this topic brought me in.
You're correct, when men speak...with an inescapable common-sense voice...women do indeed listen, because they have to now defend the cognitive dissonance and illogical pillars their ideologies and agendas rest on. Feels, identity politics and blue hairs screeching are not solid foundations to muddy or eviscerate the definition of "woman". Even if there is a female SCOTUS judge that cannot define the word...how in the world did you all let her keep her "woman card" after that?
Here's something your "women listen to men..." declaration points to, that no women seem to have a problem with.
The women now listening, are the same women who refused to listen to...wait for it...women.
They mocked women and girls when they crossed their arms, held up signs, demanded a definition, called out the obvious erections in the locker rooms, and injuries on the fields of play. That wasn't men disregarding, negating and berating them...that was their fellow women.
And now, women are up in arms because two men, finally did what many women have demanded..."You men need to step up and be real men and stand against this trans thing in our sports"... and forced those trans-maidens, supporters and apologists to finally have to either define "woman" or prolapse themselves like a knotted dog intestines, in order to pander to every facet of the Left and perverted alphabet mafia...and keep Royce and Enos out, as well.
I also love the screeching about Royce's checkered past. I don't condone any of it, but if, as you suggest, he had a Damascus moment (which he did, as I've followed him in the past), then what does that have to do with the issue he is challenging...that again is for the benefit of women.
Why are these same women not dysregulating over the male serial rapists and murderers in prisons, declaring they are trans, in order to enter the perpetual hunting grounds of women's prisons??
These two men have done what no woman has been able to do, in years. They have pushed the test button on the ideology and sent the wnba into a panicked frenzy. And for the most part, there will be no thank you or recognition of the victory, especially from those who stand to benefit from it.
I don't think it has anything to do with being MEN , but rather the wnba is suddenly faced with real consequences. If the majority of female players had come out and said they support real women only and won't play otherwise , they also would have been listened to. If both these guys had just said they support what Sophie said , they'd be completely ignored. It's having consequences that matter , and these guys have stepped up and provided that. Women could have provided it , still can.
As a quick aside , Kanter Freedom was black balled by the NBA for refusing to stop critizing human rights abuses in China which was refusing to pay to carry NBA gaames. It cost him at least 30 -40 million dollars . He has history. I think reducing him to just "when men speak" discounts who he is.
Interesting the way we reflexively turn to purity tests especially when someone unexpected agrees with us on something. Cue cognitive misfire. I get it, it’s important to subject our beliefs to stress tests, we can be the company we keep. But a tendency to throw away inconvenient allies isn’t helpful.
Great round-up of the state of play here, and I love your predictions.
Mariah I think the mental prowess you exercise daily will serve you well with the back and forth at the ping pong table. You will be much taller than most of the competitors I saw at nationals. Practice like you did for cornhole and another podium spot is in reach.
Love the vote of confidence! I watched at nationals; all were younger and probably better, but that doesn’t give me a sense of who will show up in my age group - and I have to reach the top four at the Delaware Games first. Thanks! Will keep practicing…
Great observation!
I want to know why the league is unprepared for this. This is a serious question, and I’m dying from curiosity.
Do you remember when that dude went into that California women’s only spa and started hanging around naked in the baths and they couldn’t throw him out because of CA laws? As far as I could tell this was California’s gender identity laws working as intended. This was EXACTLY what they wanted.
But when it actually happened, every article and every Twitter comment - literally all of them - claimed that the incident was fake, that it hadn’t happened. I’m being serious - I read through hundreds of Twitter comments trying to find a single person saying “yes, she’s a transexual and should be there”. No one said that. They all claimed the incident didn’t happen. I’m dying to know why.
Same thing here. This is something - a man joining the WNBA - that was obviously going to happen eventually. It’s the whole POINT. Why is there no procedure in place? Why talk for years and years about transsexuals being welcome in the league, attack and scream at people who are against it, and then the moment it happens look like a deer in the headlights and claim to need to have meetings?
I’m not being rhetorical, I’m not being insulting. I genuinely have no idea how this happened and would love to hear from someone with insight into this.
This is a fair question. I’ll attempt an answer. Schools, states, and sports organizations were all unprepared for the tsunami of demands from the T, the “new gay” people who demanded “trans rights,” because nothing like it has ever happened. Institutions tried to accommodate these demanding people, who, when need be, bullied them into acquiescence. The institutions didn’t understand it. They were played. But they settled for being “on the right side of history” and began to believe that there must be people “born in the wrong body” who need special treatment of all sorts.
Leaders then surrounded themselves with like-minded “be nice” people who were similarly clueless or careless about what trans means and who it hurts (primarily women and kids). They also put trans allies in decision-making roles.
In the case of the WNBA, as I noted in my article, those folks are surrounded by trans-loving fans, players, and sponsors. That bubble of self-righteousness and financial incentive and peer/player/fan pressure blocks out reasonable, fact-based, feminist voices, even when we raise them as loudly and thoughtfully as we can.
Now they’re stuck babbling on about inclusion and “no exclusion” even though they’re well aware of why sports always has two categories, no matter the age level or the weight class or disability type. Everyone with any sort of sports background knows that. (Even Megan Rapinoe.)
Adding to that… there may be males with DSDs already in the league. As there are in the NWSL (soccer). To sex-test, then exclude them, as the WTA (tennis) is willing to do, is almost unthinkable right now. It would cause chaos, boycotts, who knows.
They can do a lot without sex testing - “female from birth” mostly covers it. We offer details in the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group’s model policy and other documents (see our Substack or website).
In sum: Indoctrination and self-interest. It’s hard to see clearly, then be the lone truth-teller, in a “trans women are women” league.
Thank you for your post, but I’d argue in favor of the swab test. Having the same test across sports sets a uniform standard. If there are some in women’s soccer who don’t belong there, they have the option of “retiring” before the test or leaving after the test results are received.
As “trans” activists have amply demonstrated, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Totally agree. Ideally. Today’s news shows that the WNBA is really not planning to do anything at all.
Men and women have been speaking truth since the beginning of this sad charade. The WNBA and the rest of the loony troons choose to reject reality and substitute their own.
The two NBA players speaking are having more of an impact not simply because they are men, but because they have power. Power to force this issue out of the rhetorical and into the stark reality of the real world.
The article alludes to these few men taking a stance as the catalyst for the WNBA changing its position. There have been lots of men from many different sectors of society that have spoken truth. These two are different because they have the power to bring this argument to its logical conclusion.
I pray they stand long enough and speak loud enough to move us back towards truth.
I made this exact point and got piled on for it. The WNBA doesn't listen to anyone, they don't have to be profitable so they don't have to appeal to anyone other than their ultra-liberal feminist board and owners. It's a fact that it took two men to force their hand but that's only because the WNBA was terrified of the look of some massive dudes suiting up for a women's game and terrified of the lawsuits if they don't clarify their policies. The WNBA doesn't give "men's voices" more respect, they are just trying to cover their asses.
WNBA knows exactly what is a man and what is a woman.
Yes, and they look foolish for retreating to study the matter.
Same thoughts in my mind. No one listens to the women. It takes the men to speak before EVEN OTHER WOMEN LISTEN! So this isn’t necessarily a pure sexists problem of no one listening to women. Democrats, liberal women and other men don’t listen.
It's not just because they are men that the WNBA reacted, the WNBA ignores everyone. It was only the threat of lawsuits and the idea of a 6'10" male suiting up for a WNBA game that forced them into action. So in a way it was because they're men, but it's just a genetic thing, not because they give men more respect. In fact I think a lot of the WNBA probably doesn't like men in general.
Living in SF for decades gives me lived experience, not credibility. Isn’t “lived experience” the most important concept?
No, I do not hate women generally because they are female. I do not “look down” on them either. I’ve been arguing with and being harassed by “feminists” since at least 1988 in the PC/Woke center of the universe, and I’ve formed some opinions about the issues. I’ve also learned to spot a line of bullshit meant to shut me up and make me feel lesser than because of my XY chromosomes and that’s exactly what you are doing here. “Misogynist” “who’s the weak one?” All a bunch of lame deflection to avoid confronting any opinions you don’t approve of.
Why? To your last point.
For several reasons maybe. Because a lot of them are woke lesbians who are fighting “the patriarchy” but rely on the NBA for their league’s existence? Idk what they’re thinking, there’s just a general anti-man bias among people like that.
I disagree. Lesbians don’t need to hate men. And hating the patriarchy is different.
No, lesbians don’t necessarily hate men, that’s true. I lived in San Francisco for 33 years and I met numerous lesbians who didn’t hate men, but I also met many who did. It’s just a general attitude among the overly educated woke-like women that men and/or “the patriarchy” are oppressing them. I ran into that idea over and over and over again and again and again, for decades.
How to say you’re a misogynist without saying you’re a misogynist. I’ve seen you trot out the San Francisco thing before - as if it gives you credibility. It doesn’t. You look down on women, but keep coming to discussions like this one, where you’re likely to interact with them. Who’s the weak one?
Living in SF for decades gives me lived experience, not credibility. Isn’t “lived experience” the most important concept? Credibility comes from other people and is earned, no one should declare that they have credibility. That's not what I am claiming.
And no, I do not hate women generally because they are female. I do not “look down” on them either. I do dislike some individual women, but it's not BECAUSE they are women, it's because they are assholes. Being a misogynist would mean hating half of the people on the planet, all 4 billion of them because of their sex. That's a pretty heavy lift in terms of hate!
I’ve been arguing with and being harassed by “feminists” since at least 1988 in the PC/Woke center of the universe, and I’ve formed some opinions about the issues. I’ve also learned to spot a line of bullshit meant to shut me up and make me feel lesser than because of my XY chromosomes and that’s exactly what you are doing here. “Misogynist” “who’s the weak one?” All a bunch of lame deflection to avoid confronting any opinions you don’t approve of.
Right. Female anger at men and the patriarchy is widespread. Justifiably.
Sure, oppression of women is ubiquitous in certain parts of the world. What I experienced was educated women with every advantage possible raging about how I was, because of my essential genetic construction, personally somehow accountable for this oppression. I’m not even exaggerating. After a few decades of this, it gets kind of exhausting and resentment sets in.
I really did relish the absurdity of the two men's declarations and the way they exposed the absurdity of this "inclusivity". I wish more male athletes would take a stand like that. I also don't think the WBNA listened to them because they were male per se, but because of the way their claim to eligibility forced them to confront the consequences of their "inclusive" policy in a way women simply cannot do. Question: are there currently any male trans-identified players in the WNBA, or is this so far a theoretical issue?
Theoretical but they’re in HS.
Mariah, a PERFECT column.
Thank you, Mary!!!
Indeed. Though "Past Professor of Orthopaedics, Yale School of Medicine"? Impressive. 👍🙂
Though you might consider rattling some cages over there for this bit of quite unscientific claptrap:
Yale School of Medicine: "Every Cell Has a Sex: X and Y and the Future of Health Care"
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/every-cell-has-a-sex-x-and-y-and-the-future-of-health-care/
But the NCBI is no better, though they may have the "excuse" that Anne -- Five Sexes -- Fausto-Sterling is in there like a dirty shirt:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/
But both of them are "not even wrong" -- many cells, mostly blood cells if I'm not mistaken, don't even have a nucleus so can't possibly have any chromosomes. Which are presumably what both Yale & NCBI are getting at.
But more damning is that the standard biological definitions -- and even President Trump's EO on Restoring Biological Truth to Government (should do likewise for Yale & NCBI) -- stipulate that to have a sex is to exhibit either oogenesis or spermatogenesis. And absolutely no single cell in the human body, or those of millions of other species, can do that -- ergo, no sex in any cell, only in groups of them as ovaries & testicles, respectively.
Steersman, I wish I could redirect them..or "rattle some cages" but they would not listen to me.
Like stubborn mules they may need a 2x4 up alongside their ears -- just to get their attention, of course ... 😉🙂
https://sermoncentral.com/sermon-illustrations/80236/the-obedient-mule-by-eugene-morell
Arguably, Royce White has done just that, at least as far as male transvestites in women's sport is concerned ... 😉🙂
Though as far as Yale & the NCBI are concerned, you might have some interest in a similar case where the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00122-3
Some reason to argue that that is one of the worst consequences of transgender ideology -- the corruption and bastardization of biology, another egregious case of Lysenkoism.
My open letter to them and a linked article by US biologist Jerry Coyne:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/03/17/the-journal-cell-endorses-the-view-that-sex-isnt-binary/
The WNBA exist because the NBA is based on merit.
If a woman could compete at the highest level she would be playing in the NBA. The NBA would not ban her. That’s merit based.
The WNBA exists because no woman can. Which is why men shouldn’t be in the WNBA because it is not merit based. You just need to be a woman and be better than other woman.
This is the tell:
If a woman could compete at the highest level she would be playing in the NBA. The NBA would not ban her. That’s merit based.
‘If’ being the pertinent word.
‘If’ is not ‘is’
This is why we don’t see Trans men in Track and field.
That’s another tell.
It’s also why a group of 15 yr old boys beat the national women’s team in soccer.
It’s why over 10,000 boys between 16 and 18 can run faster than the fastest woman of all time.
You need to seriously look at some sports results. Just as one example the women's high jump world record is 6'10.5" the men's record is 8' 0.25" that's FOURTEEN AND A QUARTER INCHES higher than the women's record! Men are generally five inches taller, many pounds heavier, and have roughly 2X the upper body strength of women. Do you really think that any woman could make it in the NBA based on her "merit"? You're delusional.
Oh just fuck off dishing women with “merit based” analogies. I really wish the tennis chicks would line up all the mofos who say women’s sports aren’t merit based and lob some 🎾 balls at them.
https://youtu.be/LWs9I38VASw?si=dglWN0xUneoLTvFb
You’re delusional, Dela.
You're missing the whole reason for sports categories but I already offered the heavyweight and lightweight boxers analogy and you're persisting in saying that female athletes are not meritorious just because men happen to be stronger, faster, etc... so you don't understand sports and don't respect women. Stop.
That's not true. Yes the NBA does subsidize the WNBA but you've got to be pretty darn good to get into the league.
No. The WNBA exists because men and women have different types of bodies. Think heavyweight and lightweight boxers. Both have merit.
If they get drafted I might have to start watching😅
As always Mariah, you clearly outline the issue and the underlying problem: women are sometimes their own worst enemy. Why did we fight so hard for women's rights only to surrender them?
Exactly. Different groups of women!
Good piece Mariah,
I've not read your material before, but this topic brought me in.
You're correct, when men speak...with an inescapable common-sense voice...women do indeed listen, because they have to now defend the cognitive dissonance and illogical pillars their ideologies and agendas rest on. Feels, identity politics and blue hairs screeching are not solid foundations to muddy or eviscerate the definition of "woman". Even if there is a female SCOTUS judge that cannot define the word...how in the world did you all let her keep her "woman card" after that?
Here's something your "women listen to men..." declaration points to, that no women seem to have a problem with.
The women now listening, are the same women who refused to listen to...wait for it...women.
They mocked women and girls when they crossed their arms, held up signs, demanded a definition, called out the obvious erections in the locker rooms, and injuries on the fields of play. That wasn't men disregarding, negating and berating them...that was their fellow women.
And now, women are up in arms because two men, finally did what many women have demanded..."You men need to step up and be real men and stand against this trans thing in our sports"... and forced those trans-maidens, supporters and apologists to finally have to either define "woman" or prolapse themselves like a knotted dog intestines, in order to pander to every facet of the Left and perverted alphabet mafia...and keep Royce and Enos out, as well.
I also love the screeching about Royce's checkered past. I don't condone any of it, but if, as you suggest, he had a Damascus moment (which he did, as I've followed him in the past), then what does that have to do with the issue he is challenging...that again is for the benefit of women.
Why are these same women not dysregulating over the male serial rapists and murderers in prisons, declaring they are trans, in order to enter the perpetual hunting grounds of women's prisons??
These two men have done what no woman has been able to do, in years. They have pushed the test button on the ideology and sent the wnba into a panicked frenzy. And for the most part, there will be no thank you or recognition of the victory, especially from those who stand to benefit from it.
I don't think it has anything to do with being MEN , but rather the wnba is suddenly faced with real consequences. If the majority of female players had come out and said they support real women only and won't play otherwise , they also would have been listened to. If both these guys had just said they support what Sophie said , they'd be completely ignored. It's having consequences that matter , and these guys have stepped up and provided that. Women could have provided it , still can.
As a quick aside , Kanter Freedom was black balled by the NBA for refusing to stop critizing human rights abuses in China which was refusing to pay to carry NBA gaames. It cost him at least 30 -40 million dollars . He has history. I think reducing him to just "when men speak" discounts who he is.
Interesting the way we reflexively turn to purity tests especially when someone unexpected agrees with us on something. Cue cognitive misfire. I get it, it’s important to subject our beliefs to stress tests, we can be the company we keep. But a tendency to throw away inconvenient allies isn’t helpful.