I had to laugh at the news that the WNBA is going to need “weeks and months” to decide (in essence) the definition of a “woman”, which will decide once and for all (or probably not, see below) who qualifies to play in their stupid little league.
Here’s the problem. Women are by nature accommodationist. They seek to make decisions based on consensus, something that takes all viewpoints and attitudes into account, and finally arrive at such decisions with the implicit (and sometimes explicit) understanding that the decisions may be altered at some point — even when the decision may be critical and a matter of foundation principle, as is the case here.
In this case, that approach is not only wrong, but completely wrong.
At the risk of sounding all mansplainy, allow me to offer some advice to the WNBA chicks.
- Whenever an executive decision is made, somebody’s going to get upset about it.
- The key to making the best decision is to decide whether that aggrieved person (or group) represents a significant obstacle or even threat to the future of your organization.
- If you are convinced that your decision is the right one for both the short-term and long-term viability of your organization, and that the opposition’s position isn’t, make sure you set up guardrails to ensure the decision’s permanency.
That’s the 200,000-ft perspective. Here’s the nitty gritty:
Decide that the definition of a woman is someone identified as such on their birth certificate. Period, end of statement, end of discussion.
Yes, I know there is a percentage of the population who were born female but turned out to be male, either by physiology or inclination — and vice versa. And yes, I know that it’s a tragic circumstance for them.
Here’s what I also know: decisions have to be made — especially in a corporate environment — that benefit both the organization and a significant majority of their employees.
Let me mansplain that further.
Allowing biological men to play in the WNBA will do two things, both fatal to the organization and to the game.
Whether you like it or not, a huge percentage of your already-tiny audience is going to react negatively to the spectacle of “cocks in frocks” taking over the game and rendering the contest meaningless. With the disappearance of spectators — live or on TV — this is going to mean reduced interest from your advertisers, and a concomitant loss of revenue for your already-cash-poor organization. That’s the corporate outcome.
As far as the sport is concerned, that dominance is going to subtract the entire essence of sport — of equals competing against each other. Thus, adding the aforesaid cocks in frocks is just going to end up with teams recruiting more and more of them, which is going to harm your (actual) female performers both physically and in terms of their competitiveness.
Yes, that means that the gender-confused will be forever denied a chance to play in your competition. It’s sad, but in real life, tiny minorities often get the short end of the stick. It’s just the way of the world, and has been so forever. All the good intentions aren’t going to change that, and most probably, such intentions are going to be very counterproductive to your corporate wellbeing.
So, if I may be permitted to use a very masculine term, the WNBA has to bite the bullet, and make the above — and correct — decision.
They won’t. And the WNBA will begin its slide into oblivion.
You read it here first.
The birth thing isn’t going to cut it due to human factors; for me, female = XX chromosomes and male = XY. Anything else can be considered disabled.
For complex reasons that doesn’t *quite* get it.
But the solution is even simpler.
There’s a gene called “SRY” for “Sex Determining Region Y”. It is *almost* always on the Y chromosome, but occasionally can drift to the X, so you have about 1 in 20,000 people who are XX but also male. XY but female is rarer, and causes sufficient complications that, well, they aren’t going to play sports at any high level.
Of course it’s even easier than that. If it’s got a dick it ain’t a chick.
If someone’s been on hormones for 5 years, and has had bottom surgery, well, they’re pretty committed to the bit now aren’t they?
Color me skeptical re: the accomodationist women theorem. I think it’s all about the religious left.
If they exclude chicks with dicks, they enrage the Holy Church of Woke – particularly its DEI/Dikes Я Us/Piss On Whitey/Groom The Kids congregants. If they don’t, they become even more of a laughingstock than they already are.
They’ll stay true to the faith and go for the laughs.
Slanty has it right. They’ve backed themselves into an ideological corner they won’t get out of. The “weeks and months ” are just a delaying tactic in hopes dudes like Enes Kanter will lose interest.
I had to work at several of the chick bball games at my Alma Mater. Stands were empty except for the 300 dykes that showed up to watch, with a very successful chick team. The quality of play was unwatchable. Anyone that wasn’t “supporting the sisterhood” or had to be there like me, stayed home.
“So, if I may be permitted to use a very masculine term, ….”
And I thought you were going to say they needed to “man up”. 😀
I can almost guarantee you, I’ve seen more ‘intersex’ people than you have. Due to my many years in a former career as a pediatric cardiovascular ICU nurse, taking care of kids with diagnoses that can only be characterized as FUBAR, I’ve had several patients with what was then called ‘semi-hermaphroditism.’ Some of this is a genetic aberration, some is physical malformation, but sure, it absolutely exists. And it is incredibly, infinitesimally rare. Obviously, as with any birth defect, we give these poor people our empathy and sympathy. Unfortunately, the trans idealogists have done the usual leftist thing and conflated one thing for another, ‘identifying’ genetically and physically normal people with mental health issues as ‘intersex’ or whatever word is in vogue this week, when it is simply not true. Adopting a tiny medical minority’s health issues as YOUR issue is unspeakably repulsive, as these people have real issues; you’re just a retarded fag, as the meme goes. I’m with Quinton’s comment, there’s XX, XY, and anyone else is disabled. If someone is XY and wants to pretend they’re XX, they are not disabled, they are simply either sick or repulsive degenerates, depending on how charitable I’m feeling when I see them, and their own completely voluntary behavior.
How dare you. I feel, therefore I am.
It’s been a long time coming, but I have finally summoned the courage to venture out from the shadows and into the light. I know I’ll find nothing but love, support and compassion here at the House of Kim.
I am now proud and unafraid to announce that I identify as a non binary transsexual platypus. I insist that you address me using my preferred pronouns: Spectacular and Well Endowed.
So let it be written, so let it be done.