Thread by @JB_Goldstein

Something interesting is happening in the sport world over the idea of fair competition, specifically re: Trans. Some sport philosophers argue that one's achievements in sport aren't meritorious. Others want the competitive elements eliminated or at least severely reduced. 1/6

Follow the arguments and you can easily end up in a place where fair competition becomes meaningless. For merit, if we cannot claim to be deserving of victory and achievement, it makes the idea of winning or losing meaningless, since the winner didn't earn their victory. 2/6

This dovetails quite nicely with the anti-competition thrust. If one cannot deserve achievement (for various reasons) then it stands that competition itself is not the purpose of sport, then we shouldn't care about winning or losing. 3/6

So if winning isn't reflective of merit and competition is not the reason for sport, then another value must be substituted. In comes inclusion, equality, fair representation in its stead. This is at the heart of the current controversy over Trans participation in sport 4/6

Without a sense of the need to proclaim a just winner, the idea of fair competition becomes meaningless. It's more important to have fair representation, because winning isn't reflective of the true value of sport, since athletes don't deserve credit for their victories 5/6

Two good philosophy sources to get you started.
1. Carr, Daniel, 'Where’s the Merit If the Best Man Wins?' Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, v.26 (1),1999.
2. Kohn, Alfie. No Contest: The Case against Competition. 2nd ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992.
6/6