[Rockitz]

It's already happening. Golf is ripe for this ploy. The Casey Martin case is almost certainly the precedent that their attorneys will use. On another front, the Anika Sorenstam sponsor's exemption for a men's event earlier this year was another trial balloon, but next time she'll come back and want some accommodation that will make her more competitive. I suspect a single tournament with some liberal sponsor will actually change the rules for this to occur. Soon thereafter the rule changes will be legally demanded by female players.

Incrementalism is used very effectively by the liberals to change almost everything. One law at a time is their tact. It's certainly worked for the gay and affirmative action agendas. The liberals, alternatively, fight tooth and nail against incremental actions by conservatives; for example, fighting informed consent laws as a way to maintain a woman's right to choose.

Even though it is not in our nature, conservatives need to learn incrementalism as a strategy for change. The liberal agendas are running roughshod over conservative agendas because conservatives tend to be too principled and unwilling to accept incremental changes toward their ideals.

[chuckles]

What's a WUSA? Are we allowed to say that on Jim's board?

I've honestly never heard of it before today.

[presidio9]

You may be right about the legal gerrymandering, but in the end sports is about entertainment. People pay to see the best possible performance. This is why women's athletics constantly fail. A good boys HS basketball team would have no problem with the WNBA champs, and anybody who really is a basketball fan realizes this. And the liberals who cry out for these leagues are not fans, so they don't. So they cram this nonsense down our throats for a couple of years and then scratch their heads when people stay away in droves. And then it starts all over again.