6’10” former Knicks and Celtics star formerly declares for the WNBA draft

Clay Travis contacted Tetart directly. Even though Tetart never said formally “I wish to play in the WNBA”, Clay created a firestorm anyway. Below is from an article on FoxNews:

Tétart told OutKick/Fox News Digital that playing in the WNBA is "a childhood dream" and said, "If they contact me, I won’t say no."
So, OutKick/Fox News Digital asked the WNBA and the Women’s National Basketball Players Association a simple question: Would Julie Tétart be eligible to play in the league?
Neither organization responded to the initial inquiries or a subsequent follow-up specifically addressing Tétart’s eligibility under the collective bargaining agreement…
At that point, the league could treat the question as theoretical.
It isn’t theoretical anymore.
Tétart gives the WNBA a concrete case: a professional player in a women’s league who led LF2 in scoring and rebounding and has publicly expressed interest in the WNBA.
Would the WNBA consider Tétart a "woman" for purposes of Article XIII?

This is far outside journalistic ethics. Activist ethics? Maybe. But not journalists.

This is going to be easily fixed when the WNBA makes a statement to clarify that only biological women can compete. That will be easy to do if, in fact, they mean women when they say women.

If they do that, watch how quickly TRAs switch from “there are no trans women in the WNBA so it isn’t a problem!”

to

“The WNBA is so transphobic for banning trans women from ever competing!”

That’s why this is so glorious. Of course it’s bait. Because the entirety of trans ideology is one big hypocritical fish.

Then all they need to do is confirm their position.

What hand is being forced?

The work has already been done by other organisations. It's a simple rule to confirm.

Again, do you think it's better that they wait until a player is at the centre of the drama? I think the compassionate thing to do is to make the rules clear for everyone. The only reason to avoid this is cowardice.

Enes Kanter Freedom says specifically (my bolding)
"My team and I have carefully examined the WNBA’s eligibility criteria and governing framework surrounding self-identification and inclusion. Based on the current guidelines, I can and am officially declaring my eligibility for the upcoming WNBA draft in April 2027.”

As numerous media outlets, including the Guardian, have noted, the collective bargaining agreement does not include any more specific language about gender identity or sex assigned at birth.

So the WNBA's agreement does not say categorically that only biological women are eligible.

It may well have wanted to avoid stating a position until a trans identifying male claimed eligibility. Well, several now have - they say they are trans and as they point out, saying it is all that's needed.

Because it's just so nuanced and complex - and besides, men want to take part so 🤷‍♀️

No, it shouldn’t. A media organisation shouldn’t resort to deception and trickery to force the WNBA’s hand, either - either right, centre or left.

Given how tall he is, it could be a very long way above the parapet.

If the WNBAs policy is that woman in the eligibility rules means adult human female then why don't they just make a statement to confirm that.

Who is “we”?

So I suppose you have no problem with the underhand way that OutKick have done this, then. OK.

I’m talking about this, not SC. Do I need to prove my purity by having a proper opinion on all things, then? Do I need to have been outspoken on one thing to speak out an another? Seems weird. As it happens, I think she has been a courageous woman and hope she continues so.

From reading the Collective Bargaining Agreement between WNBA and WNBPA as a whole it seems extremely unlikely that this intends to define "women" as including men who call themselves women. There are provisions for pregnancy and childbirth. There are references to women's health experts. There is a stated goal of promoting women's empowerment.

The wording of "only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA" has been in the CBA since it was first agreed in 1999, and repeated verbatim in each renegotiation. There is no chance whatsoever that this included male transsexuals back in the 90s, and there is no evidence to indicate that this means something different now.

Also, there have been two trans-identifying WNBA players in recent years: Layshia Clarendon and Asia Durr, each of whom declared herself to be "non-binary". They weren't kicked out of the league, but continued competing, as the women they are. This in itself shows the CBA intends "women" to be read as actual female women.

So I don't buy any of these arguments that the WNBA haven't precisely defined "women" therefore men who say they're women can be drafted. The definition is clear from both context and practice.

There is a sense that the only male people who have withstood public scrutiny and been through ad hominem attacks in the past are the ones who feel they have nothing to lose in making a stand for whatever motivation.

However, considering the abuse the teenaged female basketballers and other teenaged female athletes in other sports get when they step up after being negatively impacted, it is remarkable that any athlete speaks up.

It obviously is a situation where there is no ‘right’ person, ‘right’ way or ‘right’ time. And there is always another more important issue to take priority.

This is going to be easily fixed when the WNBA makes a statement to clarify that only biological women can compete. That will be easy to do if, in fact, they mean women when they say women.

It doesn't matter why these individuals are signing up The issue is that they shouldn't be able to, so the WNBA needs to fix that. They should be grateful that they've exposed an unintentional ambiguity in their policies, surely?

“To be very, very clear: women’s sport is for women only.”

I believe that it is the very use of ‘woman/women’ that is the issue in the policy that has been checked and found to be the issue.

“If there is any unclear wording in the WNBA, this must be clarified.”

But only with the ‘right’ people bringing it up at the ‘right’ time and using the ‘right’ approach.

Yes. We get it.

Whereas if any male person with a transgender identity was playing and a female athlete complained she would be vilified and demonised even more than Sophie Cunningham is now. And it most definitively would still not be the right time and her complaint about a player would still not be the right approach.

Gosh… it is almost like some people have ignored the abusive treatment of all the past female athletes who said ‘no thank you’ in various ways. Or maybe their support of female single provisions is contingent on the achievement of those being just right. Which makes me think it is rather performative.

It’s obvious bait.
Isn't that the entire point of this?

If the rules are unclear, it is an issue that requires addressing.

If you are seriously suggesting that the WNBA should wait until an athlete is at the centre of the storm, you are not a sincere advocate for anyone's rights.

it should not be right wing or left wing to assert that competitive sport should be fair. Goodness knows why the left have decided to give the right such an open goal.

“news organisation of any type creating a problem where one didn’t currently exist”

The problem of having a policy that doesn’t protect female players does exist. It has existed since the policy was put in place.

According to one poster there are NINE male athletes in the school sports basketball. There is a problem.

So you don’t think that OutKick calling Tetart and asking about playing in the WNBA - thus triggering this episode - is a tad dishonest? They created the “news” themselves. Now they’re promoting that “news”. I’m not sure this is generally how news outlets operate.

“Dishonest”? Why? They want to know what the WNBA will do when it inevitably happens. And who cares? Everyone who believes in single sex sport - pretty much everyone - wants to know that too.

It’s obvious bait. I agree the WNBA should clarify their position, but as there is currently no males in the roster, it seems other issues are more pressing for the organisation.

So what if it’s bait? The WNBA needs baiting because they won’t answer straightforward questions.

More pressing issues? So the WNBA can’t clarify it’s a single sex sport AND focus on other things? And the rest of us can’t do more than one thing at a time?

I agree, it would be a problem.

So you don’t want an answer before it happens. You want to wait for it to happen, have a woman lose a spot in the draft and be on a WNBA team and THEN acknowledge it’s a problem?

Okay.

So, of course female athletes should a protected sports category, but it should be done at the right time that everyone agrees on, and it should only ever be the right people involved and the correct way to do it.

Yes… we understand.

In the meantime, have you been defending Sophie Cunningham’s right to have spoken out. I believe she did it used a gentle approach. Or is she the ‘wrong’ person too?

Sorry. Not the same scenario.

So you don’t think that OutKick calling Tetart and asking about playing in the WNBA - thus triggering this episode - is a tad dishonest? They created the “news” themselves. Now they’re promoting that “news”. I’m not sure this is generally how news outlets operate.

This is the core of my issue with this. You’ve framed completely differently, and that’s fine, but I simply have a problem with a news organisation of any type creating a problem where one didn’t currently exist, then reporting on the blowout.

To be very, very clear: women’s sport is for women only.
If there is any unclear wording in the WNBA, this must be clarified.

However, I do not support underhand efforts by media organisations of any description to force that. This is textbook manipulation. OutKick are also feeding directly from culture wars to gain traction (something the WNBA may have wished to swerve).

Sounds more like you, personally, don’t believe female people should have a protected sports category.
Of course women should have a protected sports category.

Olympic boxing tried the BlessingYou approach - how did that go? Female boxers having to suffer the consequence and lots of Be Kind types wringing their hands over the focus on poor Khelif.

Surely better that systemic inclusion problems get fixed by Bad males, before a poor 'innocent' male who just wants to be in female sports for Good reasons gets put in the spotlight of the 'right-wing press'?

I think we know that for the political action to be righteous, the narrow list of righteous people speaking gently at the time agreed to be the righteous time is to be supported.

Political tribalism is emotional manipulation.

“but as there is currently no males in the roster, it seems other issues are more pressing for the organisation.”

So you would prefer to wait until the issue came to a head and a single or a few male players were then focused on to force the WNBA to act ? Does something has to be an active issue for it to be worthy of your support and it has to be approached in just the right way or else it should not be done?

Meanwhile, some of the very issues that another poster listed as being more important will also be positively impacted in the future by fixing this issue. Plus considering the Tennis association has recently published their policy after the OIC earlier this year, and the WNBA had not publicly announced any review of their policy, it is the right time to be having this review done.

Or should it just be pushed into the future because some people want it to be done with just the right people involved and just the tone of messaging used? Just so no male people who are still actually playing basketball in fhs female category are offended ?

Why would wanting women's sports to remain single sex be a 'right wing' thing? Can anyone explain?