+Well, no. That would be stupid. Tall women might be more male-typical than female-typical _in the one particular aspect of their height_—and to some extent correlated variables like weight—but they are going to be more female-typical than male-typical in the _conjunction_ of all the _other_ measurements that are predicted from or used to assign sex categorizations—some of which measurements might _also_ be relevant to basketball.
+
+Of course, just because we plausibly want to separate our basketball league into divisions in the service of creating atmospheres of fair competition, sportsmanship, high challenge, _&c._, doesn't mean we have to do it by _sex_. If height were the only relevant major criterion,[ref]Which probably isn't going to be the case for basketball: consider that the sex difference in muscle mass is _d_≈2.6.[/ref] we would want height classes, just as boxers have [weight classes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_class_(boxing)).[ref]Although it's worth noting that boxing weight classes are divisions _within_ an already otherwise single-sex competition.[/ref]
+
+Similar considerations apply to other social groups or events where some people think sex might be a relevant criterion of inclusion or exclusion. Ozy enumerates some ways in which they and our mutual friend, the author of the ([again](/2018/Apr/reply-to-the-unit-of-caring-on-adult-human-females/), highly recommended!) blog [_The Unit of Caring_](https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/), would be a poor fit for declared women-only social events. Ozy writes:
+
+> The actual category they should be using is not "cis women." The actual category they should be using is "people who would be contribute to the atmosphere you made this a woman-only event for."
+
+_In all philosophical strictness_, I agree. Outside of a few _relatively_ narrow domains of life (medicine, intercourse, family planning), there aren't good reasons to care about sex _per se_ (as opposed to characteristics which might correlate with sex at some nonzero but not so-huge-as-to-be-effectively-binary effect size). Scott Alexander is entirely correct that categories are in the map, not the territory. There aren't ontologically-fundamental <code><sex value="F"/></code> XML tags attached to people's souls, and we wouldn't have any reason to care if there were.
+
+[...]
+
+/papers/lippa-gender-related_traits_in_gays.pdf