So, here we have the ‘so few’ argument. Of course, having done the reading and women’s groups having done the sums, ‘only a few’ male people can cause significant detriment and harm to thousands of female players over a lifetime in sport.
Apparently though, we are to believe that this either doesn’t happen or is acceptable collateral to help these male athletes stay happy and healthy.
“Let's declare trans people the real emergency, because who wants to discuss stuff like inequality of access and sponsorship, and widespread abuse by coaches, when we could have cis men showboating about how they're our saviours.”
This is just distraction.
This is not an issue limited to ‘male people with transgender identities’. This is also an issue of male people with bodies formed around the production of small gametes who not only produce testosterone in typical male levels in their working testes but also have a body that processes that testosterone to virulise to any degree not available to female athletes.
This is a call to the Basketball organisations around the world to bring their policies into line with the clear policy standard now set by the OIC.
Also, just because there are so few male players with transgender identities in the competitions, doesn’t mean that this will remain the case with the current policy. It is the policy that is being tested here and the acceptance of the league for the action being taken.
However, it is also distraction to then declare that women should be focused on other issues that one person or a group of people want to set as their personal focus. Directing female activists attention to a list of someone’s personal political focus in this way can be considered misogynist behaviour.
“The best way to save women's sport remains paying to attend it.”
No. I’d argue it is not the ‘best way’. It is one way. And if the sport has been rendered unfair and unsafe for female players, it is a lower priority to making it safe for those already playing.