Everyone but the WNBA has an opinion on what the league should say about transgender participation

What the WNBA now has in historic abundance is freelance advisers.

Everybody with an internet connection has an idea about how it should handle the Sophie Cunningham controversy. Toronto will join the brainstorming session on Tuesday when Cunningham and her Indiana Fever visit for a game against the Tempo. Remember to boo for Yay, and jeer for Nay.

It’s been about a month since Cunningham put a whole bunch of angry cats among some very confused pigeons by mentioning “young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

Given that the WNBA is – by valuation at least – the primary women’s professional league in the world, and that the issue of participation of non-biological women in women’s sport has roiled athletics for the last few years, you would think the WNBA would have a response prepared on this. But it very purposefully does not, not that anybody would put it like that. It was really hoping no one would ever notice.

Its collective agreement notes that “only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA.” That’s not any sort of a final word. It’s the invitation to a little culture war you’ll be hosting at your place.

Cathal Kelly: The part-time professional athlete is here, and you can’t get enough of them

Okay, fine, it didn’t want to fight this fight when it was mostly the Olympics’ problem. But now that everybody’s rolling around on the grass in their front yard, the WNBA continues to operate on a closed-curtains policy. If it can’t see it, then it can’t be happening.

The league released a memo promising to think about the issue more, along with holding “listening sessions.” The players’ union said that it would do likewise.

When that didn’t calm everyone down, both began to complain that no one was giving them enough time to think, a process with no end date that apparently requires total silence.

As happens with any intractable cultural issue these days, the spectre of “bad-faith arguments” was raised. As I understand it, a bad-faith argument is any argument you’re worried you’re going to lose.

Clearly, what the league wants to do on this file is what it’s always done – nothing. Never having a clear stand on whether or not transgender athletes can participate hangs on the hope that no transgender athlete will ever apply.

The league’s most pragmatic defenders aren’t arguing that women born men should be allowed to join up. Only that none have ever tried, so why have a rule on that?

That’s putting a lot of faith in a universal understanding of what constitutes fair play, which is why it’s ridiculous. If we could always count on people’s better natures, we wouldn’t need courts.

This line of reasoning was cut by two former NBA players, Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White. White declared that he is “a woman for the purposes of professional basketball.” Both say they plan to enter next April’s WNBA draft.

Is this disingenuous? Obviously. Does that matter? No. You said no one would ever do this, and now two someones are. Their motives are immaterial.

How would you write a rule that bars political circus performers pretending to want to be women versus someone else? And even if you could, would you be willing to write any sort of rule at all? How much listening would that require?

It would be madness to wait eight months with the issue hanging over the league like an anvil and not do anything about it. So for now, that’s what it looks like the league is going to do.

It’s become difficult to tell if this is pure incompetence or some sort of sneaky marketing campaign. I suppose it would depend on who they were trying to explain it to.

There is only one sensible solution for the league here. You release a statement saying that you respect everyone’s right to have a view on this, but that your professional league is exclusively made up of women who were born women. Then you agree to insert the word “biological” in the next CBA. It has the advantage of being both the only fair thing, as well as a widely popular thing. And that’s it. You go through a few hot days and then the whole thing ends.

If the players’ union wants to fight you on that, great. Let them. If it starts a little labour civil war, your bosses in ownership will be doubly in your debt.

Because what’s the alternative? You allow some hulking proto-Kanter currently in the NCAA, one with politics you find more agreeable, into the league? All so you can prove that you are inclusive?

Someone will try it eventually because while we’re running out of everything in this world, we’ll never be short on chancers.

It’s a sorry state of affairs when the most visible women’s league shows no willingness to lead on the most discussed women’s issue in sports. Instead, it’s running. Every time WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert addresses it in a statement, you wonder if she fell out of her chair backward as she typed.

This is not to say that the league should have any particular viewpoint or programme. Just that you’d think it would want to be out front, loud and clear about what it believes in.

But no. The Cunningham affair has proven that the complete opposite situation exists. Based on its actions and statements, the WNBA is desperate to follow. Preferably whoever’s yelling the loudest.

This is why they’re still booing Cunningham. It’s why Kanter and White showed up looking to run a grift. It’s why in a world where a killing can be a three-day story, this lightweight mess refuses to die.

It’s because even the most casual observer can sense the league’s weakness. It believes its voice might, in this one case, be the difference. The wild thing is that it might be right.