The WNBA has apparently decided Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White aren't eligible to play in the league.Now it needs to say, on the record, how it reached that decision.WNBA SILENT AFTER CAITLIN CLARK SAYS LEAGUES SHOULD DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN WOMEN'S SPORTSFront Office Sports reported Monday that unnamed league sources said Freedom and White, two former NBA players who have declared for the 2027 WNBA Draft, are ineligible.The sources also called their declarations "simply publicity stunts" and said the league would not give oxygen to efforts intended to mock it or demean others.Fine.What makes them ineligible?That's the only question that matters, and the WNBA still won't answer it.Freedom and White are obviously making a point. Nobody thinks either man is seriously preparing to spend next season trying to earn a WNBA roster spot.But calling it a stunt doesn't make the point go away.The WNBA's collective bargaining agreement says only players who are women are eligible to play in the league. As the FOS report itself acknowledges, the CBA does not define "woman" or include language about "gender identity" or "sex assigned at birth."That's a problem for the WNBA, and it's not a problem that was created by Freedom or White.CLUELESS WNBA ATTACKS 'BAD-FAITH' FANS WHO DON'T WANT BIOLOGICAL MEN RUINING WOMEN'S SPORTSIf the league has now determined that two males who say they identify as women do not satisfy the eligibility standard, it should be able to explain the standard it used.Does the WNBA define "woman" based on biological sex? If so, say it.Is self-identification insufficient? If so, say that too.Does the league use a different set of criteria for someone who identifies as transgender? If it does, players and prospective draft entrants deserve to know those criteria before the 2027 WNBA Draft.The league has reportedly already made the call. It says neither Freedom nor White can play.Now it needs to explain its rule.The WNBA doesn't get to make that determination anonymously, dismiss the challenge as a publicity stunt and pretend there is nothing to discuss.OutKick asked the WNBA to confirm whether the FOS report reflects its official position, identify the criteria used to determine Freedom and White are ineligible, define "woman" under Article XIII, Section 1(a) of the CBA and say whether the league will publish written guidance before the draft.The WNBA didn't respond to our request before publication.It did, however, have unnamed sources tell Front Office Sports that Freedom and White are ineligible.Nobody can prove the WNBA chose Front Office Sports because it expected an easy story. But Salao's coverage gives the league every reason to believe it would get one.WNBA FIGHT OVER MALES IN WOMEN'S SPORTS EXPOSES HOW THE LEFT KEEPS ANSWERING A QUESTION NOBODY ASKEDEarlier this month, FOS described OutKick as an outlet that had "glommed onto" the issue and ran a subhead about outlets that "pop in to write about transgender issues." The reporter didn't write that as a simple credential story. He adopted the league's premise that OutKick was trying to manufacture a controversy.FOS also used the Sky's credential decision to make OutKick look unreliable.It reported that, "as of Friday morning," a Sky source said no decision had been made, then emphasized that OutKick had not shared a rejection email. The Sky denied the request at approximately 3:45 p.m. ET. FOS published at 5:46 p.m. and updated at 8:07 p.m. without telling readers that the denial had already happened.Maybe that was all a coincidence. It would mean the Sky source had no idea Friday morning how the request would be resolved, nobody told FOS when it was denied and no one at FOS thought to check before it published or updated.That's a lot to believe.When OutKick reported something inconvenient for the league, FOS wanted documentation, competing sources and context about OutKick's motives.But FOS's own report says the CBA does not define the central term, then prints an anonymous claim that Freedom and White are ineligible without explaining how the WNBA reached that conclusion.The story gives readers no indication the reporter asked the league to define "woman," identify the eligibility criteria it applied to Freedom and White or explain whether self-identification would ever be sufficient. And if he did ask those questions, the story should have told readers that the WNBA wouldn't answer them.It did neither.Instead, readers got the WNBA's conclusion and its "publicity stunt" label, not the reporting needed to support either one.For weeks, the WNBA said there were no immediate eligibility matters to address. Then unnamed league sources told Front Office Sports that Freedom and White are ineligible.That is an eligibility determination.The league reportedly made it. It now needs to explain the rule behind it.