To be clear I want those candidates (who perform poorly for national politics btw) to move on. Find something impactful to campaign on and let sports leagues make their own decisions (based on the input from their participants).
And no it doesn't impact nor potentially impact every female child. That's as dramatic as the other position is nonsense. I hope that feeling gets sorted out so people can move on from that perspective as well. 1) SCOTUS ruled state bans are legal. That takes care of much of the population for your worry. 2) For any state/league that allows it, consider the likelihood.
View attachment 1370759
It's just not something that would ever get me worked up for my own daughter given the odds even if my state didn't have a ban. And in the thousand lifetimes she'd have to live for it to ever be a real risk to her physical safety, I'd pull her out and lobby the league to change their rules.
IMO our governments and politicians need to leave situations of frequency such as this up to the few people it could ever impact to police things rather than do the national grandstanding purity test thing have going on for it right now.
But I get it - we live in a black and white world now. So we're left with one population that is horrible at assessing risk and another population that loves to talk about how tolerant and accepting they are for all people by catering to 0.005%, give or take a few thousandths, at the expense of the majority of girls/women. Apparently that kind of math wins elections in some districts. Make it make sense.