The disadvantage wouldn't need to be solved, if not for the issue arising in the first place. It's not a social justice, it's not a crusade.It's restoring the balance in women's sports. If a league is intersex from the start,there's not a problem(in the famous tennis match, we saw that women could hold their own with men tennis players.) but if a league is predominantly for and by women, then it should ideally remain that way. Ironically, it doesn't exist the other way around. While there would be concern if women joined a male dominated league(such as the NBA or MLB or NFL), while it would be dismissed as a gimmick, it wouldn't cause an uproar and in fact if they succeeded it would be applauded. This is because it's more morally dignified to overcome a disadvantage as opposed to oppressing people with an inherent advantage you wouldn't have.
You keep claiming its not social justice, then say things like "restore the balance". Which is Social justice. I think you have a misunderstanding of what social justice is. I blame conservative media.
Social Justice to me, is the attempt of fixing a perceived problem that doesn't exist, or using a solution that wholly isn't necessary except it's the politically favored solution. it is in other words, activism with a different name to it. I'm not being an activist for restoring the natural competitive balance in sports. In fact, I'm actually quite staunchly conservative on the issue the more we talk about it and the more I think about it.
So how am I wrong? How is 'Social Justice' not activism? Why not just call it plain justice, why does it have to be 'social'? It's a marketing ploy, by Democrats.