Why are you assuming it wasn’t intentional?  That’s EXACTLY the sort of thing a minor league team would do to draw interest.

To be fair, the majority of cases in both men and women are asymptomatic.

I read the comment, didn’t get it, actually left the page, started browsing other pages, then it hit me. So I returned to give a star.

OW ME BACK

“This is some pretty heavy stuff.”

Read a book.

Call me when someone puts a goalie up on the rim, and then maybe I’ll cheer when uber-villain Kobe scores twenty and they’re not empty-netters.

Right but what “home-court advantage” means isn’t “a guarantee that you’ll never lose at home,” but rather “theoretically you can win the series without having to win another road game.”

People keep saying this like hockey is a real sport anybody should care about.

Well no, no. The Bruins are still alive and in the Conference Finals. So there’s no happiness here.

I don’t think it assumes that. Home court is just an advantage, not a guarantee. If more of the remaining games of the series will be at your home than the other guy’s, the advantage lies with you. If you lose one, the other guy has stolen the advantage. That applies regardless of seeding or actual number of remaining…

Interesting to see that this whole thread was hidden by Deadspin.

“These categories you believe science supports do not exist”

The Michael Phelps comparison is a poor one and not really a comparison at all. The women’s sport comparison to Michael Phelps is maybe Serena Williams, who everyone recognizes has distinct advantages over her competitors but it’s not remotely controversial.

I did not say they were mutually exclusive. I will use Hogshead-Makar’s well-stated point: relevant to sport, she has male advantages.

For the purposes of this discussion, your unstated argument is that XY and eligibility for competition in women’s sport are not mutually exclusive. Which, I mean, surely you see the problem there.

It is public knowledge released by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Rikki-Tikki-Deadly posted the link in another reply above.

The XY status is not just according to Hogshead-Makar - it’s made clear in the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s media release for their decision:

I don’t see how this is racist in anyway. Honestly, I can’t see any racist ange to this at all. You may be 100% correct that some women feel “feminism is only for white women”, I have no way of knowing that, BUT THIS case seem devoid of racial inequities, as most of the athealtes this women feels are being…

She has XY chromosomes according to Hogshead-Makar. This is an INCREDIBLY important detail that all the Deadspin writers intentionally omit. That, along with the highly elevated T levels should pretty much end the debate.