+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: