The WNBA kerfuffle over Sophie Cunningham and the larger debate about transgender participation in women’s sports has handed conservatives a clear moment to make a principled case: defend sex-separated athletics, protect opportunities for girls, and do it with civility and conviction. This piece argues why the league’s mixed messaging is ripe for rebuttal, exposes the hypocrisy of certain outspoken figures, and urges a calm, persuasive conservative approach rooted in common sense and respect for biology.
The headline moments started with Sophie Cunningham standing up for a teammate and speaking plainly about biological differences between boys and girls. That simple statement ignited a predictable flurry from voices eager to broaden definitions and blur lines that historically protected women’s athletics. Conservatives shouldn’t sneer at the spectacle; they should use it to state a clear, factual case for maintaining separate leagues so girls have fair competition and opportunities.
The WNBA has become an especially convenient stage for cultural fights because it sits at the intersection of sports, gender politics, and big media narratives. Coaches and commentators can signal virtue without risking much real consequence, especially when they coach a top team and enjoy protective media coverage. That creates a safe theater for grand statements that often ignore legal agreements and the practical realities of competitive fairness.
Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve stepped into the fray with a familiar refrain about inclusion and nuance, walking a line that comforts progressives while avoiding concrete policy fights. Her public remarks read like a playbook for signaling without action, designed to placate both sides and never actually resolve the core issue. That posture is convenient for elites who won’t face the consequences when policy meets competition.
“I come from a space of inclusion,” Reeve told reporters. “The narrative that I think is problematic is to suggest that transgender athletes are the biggest problem in women’s sports. This is what’s bothersome. There is a faction of people in our country that are making this a massive issue.”
Reeve added more hedging about nuance and common ground, which sounds agreeable until you remember that leagues already spell out eligibility rules. The WNBA’s collective bargaining agreement explicitly designates the league for women, making some of the coach’s broad assertions hard to reconcile with reality. If the policy is one thing and the public posture another, conservatives should highlight that inconsistency rather than cede the moral high ground to empty rhetoric.
Reeve added that she thought the topic required “nuance,” especially when looking at competitive and elite sports beyond puberty.
“That’s where I say common-sense people get together and you find common ground,” she said. “To find a way to be inclusive. The answer isn’t ‘no.'”
The honest conservative answer is straightforward: biology matters and protecting female-only competition is not prejudice, it’s practical fairness. That does not preclude compassion for individuals or respectful accommodation in noncompetitive contexts, but it does mean keeping elite women’s sports oriented toward women. Pretending the issue doesn’t affect outcomes will only undermine girls’ chances and the integrity of women’s athletics.
There is also a persuasive case to be made about community and mentorship at games—young girls identify with female players and deserve teams where they see themselves reflected at the highest levels. Coaches, parents, and fans invest time and money because sports teach grit, teamwork, and aspiration. Conservatives can emphasize those grassroots benefits while arguing that policy choices should protect those opportunities for female athletes.
Far from a culture-war grab, this is an appeal to common sense and to institutions that actually deliver opportunities to girls. The Left keeps offering rhetorical confusion and incentives for elites to virtue-signal without accountability. Conservatives, by contrast, should answer plainly, make the legal and biological case, and do so in a way that builds bridges with ordinary Americans—especially parents who want fair, safe competition for their daughters.
There is a scriptural injunction that fits this approach:
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
Civility and clarity together make for the strongest conservative strategy here: call out contradictions, defend women’s sports, and articulate a humane, commonsense policy. The moment handed to us by the WNBA is not merely a media spectacle—it’s an opening to reconnect with voters over straightforward values that protect girls and preserve competitive fairness without surrendering decency.
Leviticus 18:22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.”
It’s put in a concise clear identification perspective of reality as God did make it perfectly clear! What follows is a short, sweet and concise explanation of why so many persons are being duped or what the Devil does in the details; tricks (with a lie)!
Isaiah 5:20 “Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
Lucifer is now working overtime every second of every day to “trick and trap” as many souls in his web of deceit and lies so he can claim them as his to pull down into the bottomless pit for eternity! Discern people!!! We all get this one chance to choose whether our souls go up or down forever!
{Does Genesis 1:27 Teach Gender Fluidity?}
“There has been a historic first in the Church of England.1 Bingo Allison has become the first gender-queer priest who considers himself non-binary and uses they/them pronouns. He claims to have discovered Scriptural support for gender fluidity2 in Genesis 1:27, believing that God guided him one night into a new understanding of the verse. Genesis 1:27 (NIV) reads, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Allison claims “male and female” is understood as “maleness to femaleness.” This translation thus describes a gender fluid range rather than a binary system of male and female. Is this translation correct?”
(Like a snowball’s chance in hell it is correct!!!)
“The Scriptures are clear that God has made humans male and female. Allison is mistaken in his interpretation and is dangerously leading many astray, especially children. One would be hard pressed to find a true biblical scholar that would agree with his spiritual experience and assessment of Genesis 1:27.
Genesis 1:27
In order to assess Allison’s “spiritual experience” of Genesis 1:27, we turn to the Hebrew. First, do the words male and female indicate something different than man and woman? The simple answer is no. “Zākār [Hebrew male] is a gender-specific designation; it always specifies the male individual or a group of males.3 The Abridged BDB affirms this in saying that zākār refers to “men, male persons (of all ages)…”4 These dictionaries affirm the same reality in the Hebrew word for female.5
Second, are we suppose to understand the word “and” as “to”? Again, the simple answer is no. The Hebrew gives us a conjunction here, not a preposition. A conjunction expresses male and female as two distinct categories that are related in one system. Genesis 1:27 teaches that God made human kind either male or female. If the author of Genesis wanted to express the word “to” instead of “and,” he would have used a preposition instead of a conjunction, which he clearly did not.
This interpretation is further affirmed when we examine the usage of Genesis 1:27 in the New Testament. Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 in Mark 10:6 and also uses a conjunction rather than a preposition.
Lesson Learned
Allison’s “spiritual experience” instructs us. Let us be careful not to read our situations or desires into a text of Scripture; we must seek the author’s meaning. The Scriptures are not a fortune cookie that we turn to and make it immediately apply to our lives. There is an original context and audience to whom it was first written. In order to interpret it into our context, we must first begin with understanding it in theirs. This takes work, but it is important into understanding God’s Word and interpreting it faithfully.” ://branchsd.org/articles/does-genesis-1-25-teach-gender-fluidity
I say also that modernist times we are now in have produced far too many people with an attitudinal issue by which many get up on their high horse and think they know better than all of the collective sages and wise one’s of the last few millennia! Fools for sure!
God bless in Jesus’ name!
Amen.