RedState95%

The Essex Files: Biology Is Not Bigotry: Why the WNBA Reaction to Female Fans Should Worry Everyone 80%

By Brad Essex99%

7/31/2026, 11:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 31.3% saturation with 191 hits. Analysis detected 1,065 faulty-reasoning hits from 611 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.4% and a BS Rank of 80% (5,357 of 26,321 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.70% of the article peer group.

Seattle being Seattle, it was only a matter of time before a simple show of support for biological reality in women's sports sparked backlash. 
On Tuesday night, before the Indiana Fever faced the Seattle Storm, dozens rallied outside Climate Pledge Arena in support of Fever guard Sophie Cunningham. 
She had recently spoken out in favor of keeping men's sports separate from women's, a view rooted in basic biology and fairness. 
The fans carried signs and wore shirts affirming that stance. 
Inside the arena, two 16-year-old girls holding signs that read "Thank you Sophie for speaking up for girls" found themselves targeted. 
Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton approached the teens and berated them, reportedly calling them "f***ing insane" and suggesting they seek forgiveness for the "sin" of backing biological sex categories. 
Other fans joined in, with shouts of "take the trash out" directed at the girls. 
The WNBA responded by suspending Keaton for the team's next five home games and issuing a fine, while the Storm offered a statement apologizing and stressing that every fan deserves respect. 
This episode reveals something deeper about parts of the WNBA ecosystem. 
The league often celebrates players who champion progressive causes. 
Yet when a young woman like Cunningham expresses a straightforward opinion grounded in protecting female athletes, or when everyday fans holding traditional views show up to back her, the reaction turns hostile. 
Cunningham is talented, articulate, and unafraid to state what many see as obvious: Women deserve fair competition based on biology. 
For that, she earns boos from the home crowd and verbal attacks on her supporters. 
The contrast stands out. 
Voices that align with certain social campaigns receive platforms and protection, even when they veer into contempt for differing views. 
But let a player or her fans defend sex-based categories in sports, and tolerance evaporates. 
It is as if the league tolerates dissent only in one direction. 
The rally outside the arena was peaceful, promoting ballot initiatives in Washington to preserve girls' athletics. 
Inside, courtesy gave way to confrontation aimed at teenagers. 
Cunningham later called the owner's actions embarrassing, a measured response that highlights the unnecessary escalation. 
These young fans were not disrupting the game. 
They were expressing support for an athlete exercising her right to an opinion, one shared by growing numbers of parents, athletes, and observers concerned about fairness in competition. 
Biology is not bigotry. 
Recognizing differences between male and female physiology protects opportunities for women, something the women's sports movement long championed. 
The WNBA has grown in visibility, thanks in part to stars who draw broad audiences. 
Yet incidents like this risk alienating potential fans who value merit, safety, and common sense over enforced ideology. 
Suspending the co-owner was the right call for league discipline, but it does not address the underlying cultural tension. 
When supporting biology draws this level of scorn, particularly toward young women, it suggests a league still wrestling with how to handle viewpoints outside its dominant narrative. 
Seattle has long worn its progressive identity proudly. 
In this case, that identity clashed with basic respect for differing fans and the reality that women's sports thrive when they remain for women. 
Cunningham and her supporters deserve credit for speaking plainly. 
The rest of the league might consider whether genuine inclusion extends to those who simply want fair play preserved. 
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%Brad Essex: 8.2%RedState: 6.4%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Brad Essex: 6.5%RedState: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 3.3%Brad Essex: 0.4%RedState: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.2%RedState: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Brad Essex: 19.8%RedState: 8.5%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.9%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.9%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.2%RedState: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Brad Essex: 3.6%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 9.8%Brad Essex: 15.1%RedState: 13.0%Negativity Bias9.8%This article: 1.3%Brad Essex: 0.2%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias1.3%This article: 4.4%Brad Essex: 2.3%RedState: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.4%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 3.3%RedState: 4.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.4%RedState: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Brad Essex: 2.6%RedState: 1.9%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.6%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Brad Essex: 0.4%RedState: 1.1%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.8%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 2.7%RedState: 6.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 3.8%RedState: 2.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Brad Essex: 1.6%RedState: 2.9%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 7.7%Brad Essex: 9.9%RedState: 2.2%False Dilemma7.7%This article: 4.4%Brad Essex: 3.6%RedState: 1.3%Slippery Slope4.4%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.7%Brad Essex: 17.8%RedState: 9.3%Hasty Generalization18.7%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.4%RedState: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 1.1%RedState: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.1%Brad Essex: 12.6%RedState: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion13.1%This article: 3.4%Brad Essex: 1.3%RedState: 1.6%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 1.8%Brad Essex: 4.4%RedState: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.8%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.7%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.3%RedState: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 6.5%Brad Essex: 4.0%RedState: 0.2%Appeal to Nature6.5%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.2%Brad Essex: 3.4%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal7.2%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.4%RedState: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Brad Essex: 1.2%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 0.6%RedState: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 31.3%Brad Essex: 38.4%RedState: 19.8%Biased Writer Voice31.3%This article: 2.9%Brad Essex: 4.8%RedState: 4.4%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Brad Essex: 4.8%RedState: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Brad Essex: 20.9%RedState: 14.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.8%This article: 7.2%Brad Essex: 3.7%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.2%

611 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers7.0%attributed speech568writer words
Selected voice

Celeste Keaton

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words65% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Celeste Keaton: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.6 ptsWriter: 33.6%Celeste Keaton: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Celeste Keaton: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Celeste Keaton: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Celeste Keaton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.