Nonetheless... (thread)
@AyoCaesar foregrounds Non-Domination. (ND) She points to the fact that there is only one trans competitor in Tokyo (ignoring the alternate, and the 9 (?) para-athletes... 1/
@AyoCaesar foregrounds Non-Domination. (ND) She points to the fact that there is only one trans competitor in Tokyo (ignoring the alternate, and the 9 (?) para-athletes... 1/
What does ND show about trans-inclusion into women's sport (TI)? Some candidate answers:
A) ND shows that TI is fair
B) ND shows that TI doesn't matter...
I'll take these in turn
2/
A) ND shows that TI is fair
B) ND shows that TI doesn't matter...
I'll take these in turn
2/
A) is a category error. Whether a contest is fair or not is independent of the results of that contest. Fairness (in sport) is a matter of procedures, not outcomes. To see this, consider the difference with a criminal trial. There's a fact of the matter that the trial ...3/
is trying to uncover. Did the Butler do it? A perfectly fair trial procedure would make sure that the Butler was convicted *if and only if the Butler did it.* Fairness would depend partly on the result. ...4/
But this isn't true of sport. Maybe Usain Bolt would be expected to win the 100m. But if he stumbles, or messes up his start, that doesn't mean he lost unfairly. If the process is fair, then the outcome is fair. The task of sports ethicists and regulators is to ensure...5/
the process is fair. The fairness of the process, in turn, depends on the relation between the rules and the underlying justification of the contest. These need to cohere, to hang together. 6/
That's why the mention of 'all the other natural inequalities' (height advantage etc) is irrelevant to the case we are talking about. Height advantage (being over 5'9" would be unfair in a height-limited contest (So, basketball for people under 5'9") 7/
Sex advantage is unfair in a sex-limited contest (and height advantage isn't, in that contest, unless its also height limited) 8/
Women's sport is justified by the existence of male physiological advantage. The fairness of the process depends on the coherence of the rules with this underlying justification. To be fair, the rules must exclude people with male advantage, including residual advantage. 9/
This exclusion is fair as a process, and has nothing to do with results.
So argument A) above is false. ND shows nothing at all about fairness. 10/
So argument A) above is false. ND shows nothing at all about fairness. 10/
What about Argument B) That ND shows that TI and the accompanying unfairness doesn't *matter.* 'What's all the fuss about, you transphobes?' (I'll be quicker with this one, promise) 11/
B) is more a rhetorical move than an argument.
It works like this:
First *stipulate* what matters and what doesn't. (ND) Then if people refer to something that (now) doesn't matter, you can denounce them as irrational, or phobic, or whatever, because they are grounding... 12/
It works like this:
First *stipulate* what matters and what doesn't. (ND) Then if people refer to something that (now) doesn't matter, you can denounce them as irrational, or phobic, or whatever, because they are grounding... 12/
...their view on stuff that doesn't matter. (Only D matters! And ND!) So @AyoCaesar *frames* the view as transphobic because she can't see, or won't see, that some people just, well, value fairness in women's sport, and sport in general. ...13/
That's her lookout, and that's fine, no-one is obliged to think that sport in general, and women's sport in particular is a valuable practice
But if you don't or can't see that some people do think this, why intervene in a debate about fairness in sport? ... 14/
But if you don't or can't see that some people do think this, why intervene in a debate about fairness in sport? ... 14/
Just to denounce people whose view you don't understand, and whose values you don't share, as irrational and phobic?
I dunno, is that fun, or something?
(end)
I dunno, is that fun, or something?
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
