Thread by @runthinkwrite

This is an interesting new paper with which I don't wholly agree, (especially in the case of archery)... /1

Integrating transwomen athletes into elite competition: the case of elite archery and shooting tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

Beyond the details, though, look at the overall logic. Here's the antecedent of the conditional:
*If* a sport is sufficiently sex-unaffected, such that the minimal physiological changes made by x-sex hormones do not affect fairness... /2

Here are two consequents:
A) *Then* it's fair to integrate transwomen
B) *Then* that sport should be unisex.

Which should we go for?
Pitsiladis et al favour (A), but I favour (B). I don't see why the argument for (A) isn't an argument for (B) .../3

Integration and inclusivity in elite shooting, at least, might be resolved just by making it unisex. Remember the studies including Hilton et al. @FondOfBeetles show that the performance change is occasionally zero. .../4

If fairness is not compromised when persons with zero relevant physiological are incorporated, then that must be because there is no case for separation on the basis of physiology. In which case, unisex sport - like Equestrian sport.
We should follow where the argument leads./E

'differences' missing, apols.
P et al say: "the only negligible advantage that transwomen may have is superior visuospatial coordination." If they are prepared to disregard that, and upper body strength doesn't matter, then the conc. is unisex sport, not trans-inclusion.

This is, of course, an 'internal critique'. I'm not saying I accept everything in the paper. I'm saying, if you do, the conclusion is as follows...

2nd thread (ii) (I am, though, a *bit* annoyed not to be cited, since what the authors propose is a decision procedure, and that is what my JPS paper, open access, is about. But there are other things at stake here). I think Pitisiladis et al get ... ii/1

the decision procedure wrong, because of conceptual unclarity. In particular, I can't get a proper grip on this attempt at visual representation...ii/2

First criticism: the supposed continuum between safety inclusion with fairness in the middle, is misleading. Each of these are more or less binary oppositions: Safe/unsafe, fair/unfair, inclusive/exclusive... ii/3

It's obviously possible to have rules that are safe and inclusive but not fair: the continuum depiction doesn't work for this case. (which is why a decision making *process* on a lexical basis is better) ... ii/4

Second criticism: it's not clear what the triangles are supposed to show, why the vectors run in both directions. The text indicates that we should balance these values: but they are incommensurable, and balancing is a mistake... ii/5