I'm a little perplexed by how you make certain distinctions.
1.
"I respect Clarendon’s identities: trans, non-binary, gender fluid, Black, pro basketball player, 'Papa'... [But] Women remain women no matter what identities they adopt... Claiming a gender identity does not change one’s sex."
"Woman" is indicated here to be a gender identity, but does not seem to be an identity you respect as you combine it with sex. Given that you're lauding the WNBA's policy for restricting its athlete inclusion to "women," which permitted Clarendon's participation, doesn't it seem like it's a term worth defining? Do you believe it's something immutable to being born female?
2.
In contradicting Clarendon's mentions of Michael Phelps and Steph Curry/Lebron James, you state she conflated competitive advantage with category advantage. But the known thing about Phelps is that he had natural physiological advantages over his competitors, and yet this wasn't viewed as categorically disqualifying. That was, presumably, Clarendon's point. If you reject it, would that not suggest you think all sufficiently advantageous physiology should be disqualifying, regardless of the connection to biological sex? Perhaps there ought to have been a league for Phelps alone.
You assert Clarendon participates in the WNBA and not the NBA because of identity not skill, but then heavily imply it's actually the latter reason. If the real difference between the leagues is skill, then what's the problem? Clarendon was a middling performer in her league, outdone by a great many female competitors. If the concern is that she "took a woman's spot," it rests on importing a prejudice against trans women into the WNBA not warranted by league policy, and not shared by Clarendon's coathletes or their fans.
Aaron, I'm not speaking for Martina, but "woman" is not a gender identity. It's a fact. The WNBA includes Clarendon because she is a woman, regardless of how she identifies in terms of gender, religion, music preferences, etc. None of that (nor any surgeries) change the fact of womanhood.
Phelps had competitive advantages (physique, access to training, determination, etc) -- within his category (male, adult, not disabled). Competitive advantages are not categorically disqualifying. They're two different things. No matter how tall a woman is, she can still play in the WNBA. You can't opt out of your sex category because sex is immutable. No, Phelps does not need his own category any more than Caitlin Clark or Tiger Woods does. They're simply exceptional athletes - who, like almost all athletes, know that they must play within their proper category.
There is no problem with Clarendon playing in the WNBA. No one objects that she calls herself nonbinary. It's relevant to her, but it's irrelevant in terms of sports performance.
"I respect Clarendon’s identities: trans, non-binary, gender fluid, Black, pro basketball player, 'Papa' (she and her wife have a child), and whatever other identities she may choose. But those of us who care about women’s rights must not get confused by these terms. Women remain women no matter what identities they adopt. Same for men. Claiming a gender identity does not change one’s sex. Nor does choosing sex-modification surgery."
BINGO!
Nobody can magically morph into the opposite sex. Nobody. Ever.
I not at all confident of Martina's interpretation of the WNBA collective bargaining agreement about women. It's very possible, if not likely, that a TWAW policy would include trans-identified males as women for their purposes. I hope Martina is right, but I'm skeptical.
Well said!
I'm a little perplexed by how you make certain distinctions.
1.
"I respect Clarendon’s identities: trans, non-binary, gender fluid, Black, pro basketball player, 'Papa'... [But] Women remain women no matter what identities they adopt... Claiming a gender identity does not change one’s sex."
"Woman" is indicated here to be a gender identity, but does not seem to be an identity you respect as you combine it with sex. Given that you're lauding the WNBA's policy for restricting its athlete inclusion to "women," which permitted Clarendon's participation, doesn't it seem like it's a term worth defining? Do you believe it's something immutable to being born female?
2.
In contradicting Clarendon's mentions of Michael Phelps and Steph Curry/Lebron James, you state she conflated competitive advantage with category advantage. But the known thing about Phelps is that he had natural physiological advantages over his competitors, and yet this wasn't viewed as categorically disqualifying. That was, presumably, Clarendon's point. If you reject it, would that not suggest you think all sufficiently advantageous physiology should be disqualifying, regardless of the connection to biological sex? Perhaps there ought to have been a league for Phelps alone.
You assert Clarendon participates in the WNBA and not the NBA because of identity not skill, but then heavily imply it's actually the latter reason. If the real difference between the leagues is skill, then what's the problem? Clarendon was a middling performer in her league, outdone by a great many female competitors. If the concern is that she "took a woman's spot," it rests on importing a prejudice against trans women into the WNBA not warranted by league policy, and not shared by Clarendon's coathletes or their fans.
Aaron, I'm not speaking for Martina, but "woman" is not a gender identity. It's a fact. The WNBA includes Clarendon because she is a woman, regardless of how she identifies in terms of gender, religion, music preferences, etc. None of that (nor any surgeries) change the fact of womanhood.
Phelps had competitive advantages (physique, access to training, determination, etc) -- within his category (male, adult, not disabled). Competitive advantages are not categorically disqualifying. They're two different things. No matter how tall a woman is, she can still play in the WNBA. You can't opt out of your sex category because sex is immutable. No, Phelps does not need his own category any more than Caitlin Clark or Tiger Woods does. They're simply exceptional athletes - who, like almost all athletes, know that they must play within their proper category.
There is no problem with Clarendon playing in the WNBA. No one objects that she calls herself nonbinary. It's relevant to her, but it's irrelevant in terms of sports performance.
If you sincerely want to understand this issue better, please read my past columns, sorted under #SaveWomen'sSports: https://strongerwomen.substack.com/s/save-womens-sports
"I respect Clarendon’s identities: trans, non-binary, gender fluid, Black, pro basketball player, 'Papa' (she and her wife have a child), and whatever other identities she may choose. But those of us who care about women’s rights must not get confused by these terms. Women remain women no matter what identities they adopt. Same for men. Claiming a gender identity does not change one’s sex. Nor does choosing sex-modification surgery."
BINGO!
Nobody can magically morph into the opposite sex. Nobody. Ever.
I not at all confident of Martina's interpretation of the WNBA collective bargaining agreement about women. It's very possible, if not likely, that a TWAW policy would include trans-identified males as women for their purposes. I hope Martina is right, but I'm skeptical.
I was thinking the same.
Thanks so much for yet another excellent, informative essay. I have restacked.
Thank you WSP for consistently sharing the voices of proud & uncowed women!