It seems that the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) has really gotten itself between a rock and a hard place and is becoming ground zero in the culture wars. While I have little interest in basketball, I am always fascinated by the culture wars.
The WNBA finds itself as the focus of a lively donnybrook over the eligibility of trans women to play women’s sports. And here the dispute is entirely theoretical, since no trans players currently play in the WNBA. But it never takes much to get the culture warriors going.
This particular brouhaha seems to have begun with a WNBA player, Sophie Cunningham, expressing the opinion that it is unfair for women athletes to have to compete against men or be forced to share locker room facilities with them. Ten or 20 years ago, these views were held by most folks, but times have changed.
Predictably, there was an angry response to her opinions from many in the WNBA, including an unhinged tirade by a team owner against girls wearing a T-shirt supporting Cunningham. Things got uglier when another WNBA player was ejected from a game for a blatant foul on Cunningham. The ejected player took to social media to complain that the ejection reflected “white privilege,” adding race to the bitter slugfest.
WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert issued a meaningless statement that straddled the issue. After affirming that it was a league of “women,” she declined to define the term, and declared that they had “no immediate eligibility issues.” She then declared their support of trans women, committed to “ensuring fair competition,” and denounced those who engaged in a “bad faith debate” on eligibility.
The dispute got still livelier when two male former NBA players announced their intentions to participate in the WNBA draft next year, which would compel the WNBA to address eligibility issues sooner than it would have preferred. This will probably force the WNBA into the unenviable position of having to establish objective and precise gender criteria, instead of just offering soothing platitudes.
This wasn’t a fight it went looking for but one that it got dragged into when some of the extreme members of both tribes went ballistic over a player’s randomly expressed opinion.
It will be interesting to see what it does, and I foresee three possibilities.
First, they can limit participation solely to biological women. This would generate a great outcry from transgender advocates and, from the tone of the discussion to date, would be personally offensive to many in the league. Being a feisty bunch who have committed to the cause and resent being pushed around, many would see it as surrender.
Or, it could allow men to play. I suspect that this route would soon put to rest the claim that men do not have an unfair advantage in sports, as larger and stronger even has-been former NBA and college players decisively dominate the games. It would be a real gamble for the WNBA to assume that no owners would dare sign a male player, with the competitive advantage and money that it would give them. This would effectively be an institutional suicide, which most of the WNBA would regret.
A tempting third approach would be to try and finesse the definition of “woman” to exclude “men” while admitting trans women. But the test might be a little more difficult than merely distinguishing between, say, Caitlin Clark and Shaquille O’Neal in a wig when it came to the inevitable legal challenges. The law is founded on objectively verifiable standards, while the current use of gender “identity” relies upon the subjective, self-reported, and unverifiable feelings of the individual. Visual tests, such as Justice Potter Stewart’s famous “I know it when I see it” test that he used to determine what is pornographic, wouldn’t work because it is just too subjective and arbitrary. Requiring medical transitioning would involve getting down in the weeds with medical details. Judicial scrutiny will probably force an objective, science-based standard that will either admit or exclude men and trans women together as one group.
The question of trans eligibility illustrates one of the major philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives distrust the use of subjective “feelings” for consequential determinations, while liberals are far more inclined to accept them. For example, the use of speech codes, which rely upon the subjective reactions of an audience and whether speech “triggers” or makes any of them “feel unsafe.”
I sympathize with the WNBA. This wasn’t a fight it went looking for but one that it got dragged into when some of the extreme members of both tribes went ballistic over a player’s randomly expressed opinion. The WNBA then felt forced to support one tribe out of solidarity.
Still, the WNBA is being bludgeoned with a cudgel of its own creation, and one which it just doesn’t seem able to put down. ∆
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach whose only dribbling these days is beer off of his chin. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 27 – Sept 3, 2026.
It’s a dumbass stunt these former NBA players are doing and they should be properly pointed and laughed at for failing at being able to continue to play in their own league. They are basically admitting that they are too terrible to play professional men’s basketball that they have to try and sneak onto the women’s league to prove to themselves that they can still ball.
The outdated insult “you throw like a girl” most certainly applies to these losers. The funniest outcome would be if they did try out for the league and couldn’t get drafted because they didn’t have the skills to compete.
Of course it is a stunt, but one which reveals how ridiculous the claim is that men do not have a physical advantage in most sports. They do not claim to be currently able to play in the NBA, but instead are demonstrating that even as “has beens” they would be physically dominant if they “identify” as women and to play against women. That is the whole point.
Nature doesn’t draw a sharp line when it comes to gender. This issue came up back in the 60’s when Russia was accused of using hormones on Olympics gymnasts. Perhaps the only “objective” test would be hormone levels. Oh wait! I sound like Pete Hegseth!
The science is pretty clear that male development bestows a physical advantage that is not lost by the later use of female hormones.
Never has so much been said about so few who have so little impact on the lives of the average American.
Of course the issue effects very few, and has little impact. Yet, the Democrats are unwilling to abandon their advocacy for men in women’s sports, even though it is overwhelmingly opposed by most Americans, and even most Democrats will at least privately disagree with it. It is hurting the party politically. What does that reveal about Democrats? It tells us that the majority of the party is terrified of the activists and of being “cancelled” by their party for opposing what has become the party line. Do we really want to elect leaders who are so scared of the loudest party members among them that they will allow them to determine public policy?
Not sure it’s going to hurt Democrats much this year. Currently 49% of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the job the Republicans are doing. That usually shows up at the ballot box. But, of course I’m sure you’ll dispute any Dem victories as voter fraud. You know, that hidden fraud that you know is there but can never prove.
Not so fast. While voters may be unhappy with Republicans at the moment, you can usually count upon the Democrats to offer a worse candidate. In 2024, Trump didn’t win because voters liked him, but because they disliked Harris even more and were scared of what she would do. The Democrats nominated a candidate who less than 5% of Democrats liked when she ran in 2020, by forcing her on the party. Since then, voters have witnessed the party’s turn towards socialism, and insistence on keeping their unpopular open border, defund and outlier causes like the transgender agenda. The current stars are AOC, Mamdani and the progressives. You overestimate how popular the party is with the moderate middle.
Exactly. I never even heard of Trump, nor am I impressed by him, but running wine mom Kamala forced me to the Republican party and millions of others. It’s as if the Dems are running to lose. Now they court flag burners in LA.
Pretty sure I said “this year.” I have no idea what will happen in 2028, and frankly, I doubt I’ll be around to see it. I was shocked to live long enough to see a moron like Trump get elected.
But this year the American people will come to their senses and elect a check on Trump’s authoritarianism with at least a majority in the House of Reps. Interestingly, the Senate looks as though it could go either way though I’ve often underestimated the ignorance of my southern and midwestern friends.
Michael:
“…I’ve often underestimated the ignorance of my southern and midwestern friends.”
This is deeply offensive to a large portion of America and does little to repudiate their perception of smug “coastal elites.” People in the Midwest are victims of Democrat Bill Clinton sending their well paying factory jobs, overseas, by signing NAFTA. If anything, you underestimate their intellectual acuity. They, as well as the rest of us, know which party sold them down the river.
Obviously you’ve never read a history of NAFTA. I guess you were too young to recall that time. But, I do.
You seem to imply that it was all a Democratic plot to destroy manufacturing. It was not. It was the brainchild of the Reagan administration. Reagan was following the playbook of Milton Friedman (look him up), and open markets across countries was one of Friedman’s pet ideas. The legislation did not pass under Bush Sr. because DEMOCRATS strongly opposed it.
Clinton, on the other hand, believed that opening up Mexico’s economy would be good for both sides of the border. He also thought it would decrease illegal immigration. He was wrong. And the majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA. It passed with OVERWHELMING Republican support, however.
As for the ignorance of my southern and midwestern friends, I stand by that because they consistently vote for politicians that restrict civil rights, would deny women choice over their bodies, ignore climate change and fall in line with every catastrophic policy whim of the president. For example, Mr. Trump’s war with Iran has already cost every American family about $1,200 and that’s not to mention the over $2 trillion Trump and the Republicans have added to the national debt in just 18 months. That might be fine if the American people had to something to show for it, but they do not. Credit card debt is soaring with Americans adding over $20 billion in the last fiscal quarter alone.
Instead, that money has gone directly to the richest Americans and, other than investing in AI data centers, which employ nobody, very little of it has “trickled” down to the masses (which was Friedman’s great thesis). But Jeff Bezos has a new yacht, Elon Musk is a trillionaire and Trump has made more money since he’s been in the White House than he ever made as a so-called real estate developer. I believe saying they are ignorant is generous.
The smugness of Northerners over civil rights is amusing. I recall the ugly race riots in liberal Boston over busing. Liberal Northerns like to make grand gestures support sympathetic causes like civil rights just so long as it impacts others, not themselves. They like to exercise “vicarious virtue”.
John D:
Exactly. Liberals and virtue signaling folks north of the Mason Dixon love illegal immigrants as long as they don’t live near them, they love blue collar workers as long as the wages of blue collar workers don’t impact their quarterly dividends.
Excuse me, I’ve lived and worked with Mexican immigrants my entire life. They are among the hardest working men and women I’ve ever known. A great man once said that undocumented workers are honorable, decent, family-loving people forced into legal violations by impractical laws. While I disagreed with Reagan on many issues, he recognized the value of immigrants to our society.
Michael:
The majority of (illegal) immigrants ARE hard working, so what? Who gave them permission to be here? No one. No one asked them to come either. It is their sons and daughters who were burning the US flag last summer in LA. These illegal aliens are the ones real Americans have to compete with for rental units. As a renter and the spouse of someone whom I had to apply for, pay for, and wait for a green card for, I CHEER when illegals get thrown out of my country.
Since you boast of being of an age that gives you some sort of insight other don’t, on Bill Clinton, signing off on NAFTA, I’m guessing you, like many of your generational peers, having done nothing to earn it, have managed to ride the prosperity of the post WWII economic boom your parents won fighting and dying in WWII. Having done so, you now sit in a kind of financial that the rest of us will never know and you will never have to compete with illegals for rental units they drove up in price.
So yeah, take your liberal nonsense and shove it.
I take no joy in seeing illegals thrown out. They are largely decent, hardworking people trying to support themselves and their families. I hope I would have the drive and initiation to do the same thing if I was in their situation.
But we can’t afford to admit everyone who wants in. The costs of schools, medical care and other support are killing us. And we are already pretty crowded. As Fly mentions, housing is limited and increased demand drives up prices. Like every nation does, we have the right to enforce our borders.
I hope the 7,500 white South African immigrants, at a cost of $100 million to US taxpayers, all get picked up by Tesla or SpaceX so they don’t end up on welfare.
I get it that you’d like to take your ball and go home, but we need immigrants. They pay taxes and do the work that an aging population cannot do.
According to Google, “The U.S. general fertility rate dropped to a historic low of 53.1 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 2025, continuing a downward trend that began after 2007.”
Historic lows are not good for a capitalist economy that relies on consistent growth. This economy will collapse if we suddenly become choosy about immigration. It has fueled America for two centuries.
Since our domestic population is too lazy and well fed to do the grueling agricultural work, perhaps a return to the old Bracero program would work. Single workers are given temporary admission to work, and can send their earnings home to support their families. Without their families accompamnying them, the burden on the medical and educational systems are greatly reduced, and there is far less crowding and demand for housing.
Furthermore, declining immigration and forced deportations during the early 1930s reduced consumer demand and strained labor-intensive sectors, which helped intensify the economic downturn of the Great Depression.
Trump has said he doesn’t want to be another Hoover, yet his policies are hastening that outcome with insane policies around tariffs and immigration.
According to a recent Federal Reserve study, “Illegal immigration between 2021 and 2024, drove up overall rental prices by about 4.3 percentage points out of a 22.6% total increase.”
Housing experts have concluded that long-standing structural shortages are the primary cause for high rents. But you do sound similar to other folks from about a hundred years ago who wanted to blame their economic plight on a specific group of people.
The whole “we need lettuce pickers” argument is just silly and extremely reductive.