The “erring on the side of” bit seems all wrong in this Atlantic piece on “trans athletes” by sports columnist Sally Jenkins.

Transgender participation in women’s athletics is the single most difficult issue I’ve seen in 40 years of covering sports. It makes gambling, performance-enhancing drugs, and regulation of collegiate athletics look like tidy challenges.

What’s difficult about it? Just say no. No, men can’t play in women’s sports.

Two groups—trans women and cisgender women—both argue that they need equal protection from discrimination. But if they can’t have it at the same time in the often zero-sum realm of sports, who wins?

Oh please. It’s often the case that two groups argue that X. Deal with it.

At the core of the matter is whether trans-women athletes have a lingering testosterone advantage…

Is it? I think the core is that males have a whole array of physical advantages and that’s why women’s sports exist.

It’s unclear how many people are directly affected by the issue of trans competitors in women’s sports—according to the NCAA, fewer than 10 trans students competed among 500,000 collegiate athletes in 2024. But to high-school and collegiate girls and women who fight tooth and nail for every scholarship, decent athletic facility, and ounce of confidence in what remains a man’s world, no number seems small. At the same time, few groups must fight harder for acceptance in a hostile world than trans women.

Well, you could say the same about serial killers, or arsonists, or men who rape babies. “Acceptance” is not something that’s automatically owed to everyone in all circumstances no matter what. Women are not under any obligation to “accept” men who call themselves trans in all places and circumstances without exception.

It’s just not that difficult.