Are 17, 18, and 19 year olds (and perhaps a few years older) considered grown women?
This. I truly don't see what the big deal was about sitting out a year. A player got a scholarship, practiced, took part in team activities, sat on the bench for home games and received similiar treatment to those on the team except they didn't play in actual games. The player got the year of eligibility back. I have maintained for years the NCAA took this genie out of a bottle by giving waiver after waiver. It was the coaches, not players, who pushed for the free transfer and now they have it. I don't think the game is better for it and I'd say the majority of them would agree.The idea that a 'sit out year' was some draconian penalty, when an athlete was being 'paid' the same 'wage' for that year, i.e. free education room and board and stipend, seems a little overstated. Comparing it to the real world employment landscape ... it is like someone quitting their job, finding a new job and being told you really don't need to do anything except practice for the first year, then we will actually put you to work, but don't worry you get full pay and full benefits during the year.
What's being debated (to some degree) can be viewed in several different ways, but I don't believe anyone is being disrespected here regardless of their opinion and/or choice of words. I have known many a young person (teenagers and a bit older) who needed a time-out (including myself from time to time). I'm 83 and Huskynan gives me one from time to time.Moreso than being considered toddlers in need of a time out, which is the phrasing being debated. Then again, the same question could be asked about adults with the way some behave nowadays.

Sitting out a year at that point in one's life is a massive penalty, And to what end? To make the coach's life a little easier? That's not fair.This. I truly don't see what the big deal was about sitting out a year.