Sport is about safety, fairness and inclusion, but it is not possible to "balance" all of them. It is impossible to trade them off against each other.
How much less safety is worth a little more inclusion? How much harm for how many newly-included people?
How much less safety is worth a little more inclusion? How much harm for how many newly-included people?
Who do we ask take on those harms? How do we justify potentially endangering people when the benefit is to others?
Inclusion despite the potential for extreme unfairness or extreme danger is why we have advocates logically forced into defending the inclusion of a 12 month T-suppressed 6'6'' 17st hulk of male in female boxing.
Those advocates don't think that's safe or reasonable - I don't believe that for a moment. And so even if they don't - can't - say it, we have to be able to discuss the fact that some sports are dangerous. Too dangerous to take a "wait and see" view.
Boxing is one of those sports.
Deliberate, combative contact *with intent to cause harm*.
The results of inclusion without consideration for safety could be devastating. And we know which athlete will suffer.
Deliberate, combative contact *with intent to cause harm*.
The results of inclusion without consideration for safety could be devastating. And we know which athlete will suffer.
Not all sports will have to consider safety issues when dealing with their regulations. It's difficult to see how a track runner presents a safety issue to competitors.
A non-contact sport where illegal contact sometimes happens (netball)?
A sport where contact is permitted but probably isn't overly heavy (basketball)?
A sport where contact without intent to cause physical harm is part of the gameplay (rugby)?
A sport where contact is permitted but probably isn't overly heavy (basketball)?
A sport where contact without intent to cause physical harm is part of the gameplay (rugby)?
<trails off as this was meant to be conversational and it's sounding more like I had some kind of plan and I don't> :D
Oh, I will pick up on the ‘range’ argument. The one that says because performance metrics might overlap between categories, transwomen should be allowed to compete with females.
Take 100 males and 100 females, and measure their <insert lift>.
99 males lift 100kg; 1 lifts 49kg. Average 99.49kg, range 49-100kg.
99 females lift 50kg; 1 lifts 101kg. Average 50.51kg, range 50-101kg.
By range, females are stronger.
99 males lift 100kg; 1 lifts 49kg. Average 99.49kg, range 49-100kg.
99 females lift 50kg; 1 lifts 101kg. Average 50.51kg, range 50-101kg.
By range, females are stronger.
If someone can construct a coherent argument about how that data distribution indicates females are stronger than males, please do.
An average (whatever type) is a measurement of the property; the range is a measurement of the measurements.
An average (whatever type) is a measurement of the property; the range is a measurement of the measurements.
Range is absolutely defined by outliers.
If you have a weak male or a strong female in your dataset (both outliers), they will generate overlap between distributions.
If you have a weak male or a strong female in your dataset (both outliers), they will generate overlap between distributions.
To use, per my example, overlapping range to justify merging two categories is clearly nonsense.
If you argue it is, you are arguing for unisex sports. Because there will always be a weak male and a strong female.
If you argue it is, you are arguing for unisex sports. Because there will always be a weak male and a strong female.
If you wish to argue that, of the male pool, only TW be considered for inclusion in female sports, you are evoking special pleading.
