` :I'm sorry, Laura, but you're not looking at this move objectively. Yes, it's true that some editors were essentially making the ``let the WikiProject decide`` argument, and that's a junk argument. You may be familiar with WikiProject Birds' insistence on title-case capitalization for bird articles, which I oppose, or at least gripe about, at any opportunity. But the opposers were not the only ones making junk arguments. The accusations of sexism were uncalled for there, and some of the name-calling thereof was really beneath the standards of dialogue we ought to aim for. Furthermore, it's simply not true to say that there is no policy-based rationale for opposing the request. PRIMARYTOPIC is a plenty legitimate reason, which to a certain extent overrides PRECISE and certainly doesn't inherently contradict NPOV. And I really don't understand your appeal to V. In the discussion, you mentioned that it's ``verifiable`` that there are men's and women's teams, but that seemed a quintessentially straw man argument. Literally no one was arguing that there is no women's team. :Look, I'm probably more sympathetic to your overall argument than the oppose voters. If I were against the move on the merits, I would've voted instead of closing. But there's a larger conversation that needs to happen here. Wikipedia follows usage in other sources, so is systemic bias ok if present in those sources? I don't think there's a right or easy answer to that question. Where we have articles on a country's men's and women's teams, I wouldn't be upset to see a broader decision that they should be named explicitly, perhaps with a dab at the base title. At the same time, I'm not sure I would participate in that discussion. There were junk arguments on both sides of this RM, but there were also some very good ones on both sides. That's no consensus.   `