you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlanJam[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah it is far fetched, its a hypothetical to see people's reasoning. I guess its kinda like a reductio ad absurdum (I think I'm using that correctly).

So you say he should be allowed? You are okay with men (not transwoman, but man identifying males) in women's sports? Don't you find that inappropriate, to allow men into women's hard-fought-for sports leagues?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Isn't that just arguing semantics? Kinda lame tbh. I personally consider sports to be about fair competition not identity. So think anyone should be eligible to compete if the competition stays fair. So if a person fulfills all requirements to compete fairly why shouldn't they enter?

Would it still be "women's hard-fought-for sports leagues? No. But that doesn't matter from a purely competitive viewpoint.

[–]Spikygrasspod 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You say it's fair for a person to compete if they meet the requirements, but the question is: what should the requirements be? What categories are supposed to exist in sports, and why? It's not "lame" to pose hypothetical scenarios; it's a very useful way of figuring out what priorities someone places on different values, and for clarifying their positions when they seem ambiguous or inconsistent.

If sporting organisations wish to protect purely non physical identity categories, why do they have testosterone or other physical requirements? And why should we have separate sporting categories for personal identities at all?

These are questions worth asking because there are good reasons to have male and female sporting categories. Allowing males to compete in the women's category contradicts the purpose of the women's category, and adding a testosterone requirement is a useless papering over of this contradiction. There is no coherent principle or reasoning behind these rules, and the hypotheticals are designed to reveal this.

[–]FlanJam[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad someone understands lol