Thread by @Miroandrej

'trans athletes would not compete if they did not think it was fair to do so.' Teetzel misses the point: thinking it is fair doesn't make it fair.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

Teetzel, p. 435/6: 'Despite the ample media attention that
Radcliffe, Navratilova, Davies, Holmes and others have received, they continue to push the narrative that their voices are being silenced and ignored.' Well, the reactions they got for speaking out, shows that they...

...are right. Pressure on sponsors, etc. is an attempt to shut them up. That's why athletes who are still competing will not talk about the issue of transwomen athletes.

Teetzel writes in a footnote: "our binary sport system requires competitors to identify and compete as women or men, and does not create space for the recognition of genderqueer and non-binary athletes."

Not sure what this could mean practically. She might be suggesting...

...either of two routes: 1. Let people compete in the sex category (male or female) of their choice. Although I wonder where gender-fluid and non-binary are supposed to go? But then you would have to permit everyone, including men, to compete wherever they like.

This would be the end of sport for girls/women. Then we would end up with one, open, category.

2. Perhaps Teetzel is suggesting that we should create more categories: TW, TM, genderqueer, non-binary, gender-fluid, pan-gender, etc. Some people suggest that there are hundreds...

...of genders (gender-identities). We would end up with hundreds of categories. This would change the purpose of sport. At present we test bodies (=biology). Male against male, and female against female.

Teetzel seems to suggest that the purpose of sport is/should be: gender affirmation/validation.

Route 1. would defeat the use of sport as a means for gender affirmation/validation. So we are left with route 2. and with a plethora of categories, which seems impractical.

Also, would the gender diverse enjoy competing against each other in very narrow and specific gender categories (3rd gender, two-spirit, polygender, intergender, demigender, greygender, etc.)?

We could end up with categories/competitions of only 2 or 3 people or with just one competitor (then the event would have to be cancelled). Both routes look to be self-defeating.

If you look at the explosion in numbers, then it is likely that the IOC will eventually offer two more categories: TW and TM. The referral of girls (and boys) to GIDS (Gender Identity Clinics) in England rose from 32 to 1740 in a 10 year period [2009-10 to 2018-19]. See link...

tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/news/…

Teetzel thinks that the reason why female athletes resist the inclusion of transwomen is for purely selfish reasons. But she cannot comprehend why the 4 retired athletes are 'unwilling to welcome trans women in elite sports competitions', because they have nothing to gain.

The answer is very simple: Navratilova, Davies, Holmes and Radcliffe are not selfish, they actually care about women in sport, and about the institution of sport. Teetzel misses the irony: the 4 athletes are 'allies' of female athletes. Current athletes are afraid of the backlash

'we need to be concerned about the verbal and mental abuse trans athletes face for simply showing up to participate. The sport world is not exempt from the "responsibility to speak out against abusive situations." '

Yes, but it actually works both ways - women are speaking out.

The problem with this paper is that the author fails to question her central premise: TWAW (and what follows from it = physiological advantages). It is this premise which is in dispute. As philosophers, we question our own premises. But she assumes it is transphobic to do so.