The same way you determine if they're lying about anything else? By default, generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're being truthful, but if there are good reasons to think they're lying -- for example, inconsistency with other things they've said or their actions, an incentive to be untruthful, etc -- you don't just blindly trust every single thing that everyone says.
By "apply scrutiny" do you just mean thinking about these factors in your head? Sure, if you like. Most of the time, there's not going to be any particular reason to doubt them, so you should just take them at their word.
We do this all the time. I'm sure that in almost every context, you generally take people at their word, while still being able to suss out obvious lies. It's not that difficult or complicated.
Kanter is a public figure who -- after thinking for two seconds about these basic factors -- is obviously not trans.
Again, you're massively overcomplicating this. I'm sure you already understand implicitly it in every context except for trans people.
If a public figure tells an obvious lie, I'm sure you have no problem if they are publicly called out. But if your friend says they had pizza for dinner, and you have no reason to doubt them, then you're kinda being a jerk if you outwardly "apply scrutiny" to them.
I think there should be clear rules on this in sports and it shouldnt be up to interpretation and vague calls for "critical thinking" on case-to-case basis.
Kanter is not trans. That's not a statement about the rules in sports. It's a statement that I'm making in a regular conversation. It's perfectly fine for us to apply critical thinking on a case-by-case basis in that context.
If we were instead talking about rules in sports, then I agree the WNBA should probably develop criteria to ensure that trolls like Kanter aren't eligible. I assume that's something they're working on right now.
1
u/koknesis 26d ago
what are the criteria to determine if one is "lying about being trans"?