The WNBA formed a special committee to address the complexities of defining what it means to be a woman, but, well, they didn’t come up with any concrete answers. They’ve scheduled more meetings to keep the discussions going, and in the meantime, criticized the hostility surrounding the topic.
This past Wednesday, the WNBA shared a status update on their efforts.
In short, the solution seems to be… more meetings.
The WNBPA issued a statement emphasizing diversity and inclusion amid ongoing discussions concerning transgender athletes in women’s sports.
“Today’s meeting explored multiple topics, particularly the ongoing discussions regarding transgender athletes and the significant hate directed at our players online. We will keep engaging with all league stakeholders over the coming weeks and months. We aim to handle these critical conversations thoughtfully, in line with the league’s values. Currently, there are no immediate eligibility concerns impacting the WNBA. We firmly reject any insincere attempts to use these topics to belittle or marginalize others.”
The WNBA seems to have eliminated any corporate escape routes. They’re avoiding tough questions, discrediting critics, and just delaying decisions.
At some point in all these meetings, WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert was present. It’s somewhat awkward when leading a women’s league, yet still being unable to clearly define what qualifies as a woman. A challenging situation indeed.
This confusion became harder to overlook when former NBA players Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White announced their intention to enter the 2027 WNBA Draft, seemingly to highlight this issue.
The league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement states that “only female players are eligible to play in the WNBA.” It sounds simple enough. However, a significant issue arises—nowhere in the extensive agreement is there a definition of what constitutes a woman.
While league executives are busy in meetings, women who are advocating for the integrity of women’s sports are left to fend for themselves. For instance, Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham has openly expressed her support for preserving women’s sports and locker rooms exclusively for biological women.
After Chicago Sky guard DeJonai Carrington got ejected for punching Cunningham, Carrington took to social media to express, “WHITE PRIVILEGE @indianafever.”
Fever coach Stephanie White eventually labeled the incident as “terrible,” but only after facing backlash for her initial lack of comment. When she finally spoke, much of her focus was on the “online community,” condemning “hate,” “fear-mongering,” and “divisiveness.”
The options for the WNBA appear limited following the declaration of two players as draft picks, and those options aren’t particularly favorable.
This seems to be a recurring theme. Cunningham advocates for women’s sports, faces backlash, and even gets attacked on the court, while those in charge of women’s basketball seem more inclined to manage the tone of the conversation rather than support women raising difficult questions.
Meanwhile, international sports bodies like World Swimming, World Athletics, and UCI have implemented clear biological eligibility standards. The WNBA, however, appears stuck in an endless loop of discussions, stakeholder consultations, and polished PR responses. Ultimately, the league needs to determine what it seeks to protect. Twisting in PR maneuvers won’t alter the fundamental biological truths.
If the WNBA continues to hold conferences without making firm decisions and prefers to lecture critics instead of standing by women willing to voice their concerns, they may soon be faced with an eligibility crisis that they can’t ignore.
OutKick reached out to the WNBA for clarification on the definition of a woman but has not yet received a response.
