@shadowen Said
It's an interesting one. I can see why 'Hannah' would want to play in the sheila's comp. You stand to earn 35-80k for a months work or so whilst all your travelling expenses etc are paid for. Bear in mind that this is a comp that charges nothing for people to watch it, that charges nothing for tv stations to televise it etc. Not surprisingly the women's league runs at a significant loss and is propped up by revenue from the men's game (same story with soccer and cricket) and yet you get people complaining that the players aren't being paid enough! So money from the men's game is used to run and pay the wages of the female players and yet somehow the outcome is still seen by the left as being sexist! Go figure.
Anyway, as far as 'Hannah' goes, maybe they need a third comp for those who are 'other'. That said the AFL have said they may allow 'Hannah' to play in 2019. I doubt the mega PC AFL will keep 'Hannah' out long term. Anyway, to be honest I really don't care. The truth of the matter is that I care significantly less about the women's comp than I do about the outer Mongolian under 5's knitting championships.
As an aside, female journos complained that they were not being allowed into the male change rooms and so they were given permission to do so even though this was against the wishes of many of the players. At the same time male journos were (and still are) banned from entering the female change-rooms in netball, footy, soccer etc. As always so called 'discrimination' can only ever go one way!
Yep. Men and women are the same... until it disadvantages women (which is almost always in almost everything), at which point women need special treatment in the name of equality - because nothing says equality like being treated differently. I think that is the feminist mantra.
On Hannah (or Harry) yeah, let him play. Watching him 'don't argue' his way from full back to full forward 100 times a game may not be entertaining for the right reasons, but it certainly will be funny.