There are. Look it up. There are as you say xx athletes that can’t compete because of testosterone or that are on testosterone suppressants. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a comprehensive study done among female claiming athletes but my guess is the incidence runs higher than the general pop. I agree however even among athletes it is a small problem. But you’ll still have to deal with it. You can’t just ignore it. That why after all we have a court system in society to deal with civil (not just criminal) matters…most of the time things chug along fine but every once in a while you have to deal with these problems…and it’s those little problems that make law. Now we’re not just into philosophy but the theory of jurisprudence: rules will always be pushed by and have to account for the hard cases. Indeed law school education is made up of only such hard Cases
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
Ps are you saying that an xx woman with a hormone condition that produces high t should be allowed to compete in the womens division without suppressants? If so why? What’s the rationale?
When your kids become soccer parents, or maybe their kids, if this site is still up, they'll look back at these conversations with horror. "How could otherwise nice people be so dismissive of the struggles of a margenalized group?" It's like my grandparents' racism or my my dad's "light homophobia".
Times change. On aggregate, society has been moving toward being more tolerant and accepting of the gray areas. This can only be good.
Noticer
SILVER
Why would you assume my comment was negative? It's fantastic that, not only this forum, but society on aggregate is becoming gheyer and gheyer. Our children are going to look back on these conversations with horror. "How could @focomoso be so presumptuous, close minded and backwards?" You are not an ally. You are an enemy to everything our great nation and this forum stands for. Be better.
Your trying to obfuscate the fact that there are only two chromosome options. Additionally, you're using apples and oranges comparisons when you bring in law and philosophy to sport. I can appreciate your breadth of knowledge, but it also leads you to widely overcomplicate issues and ignore relativity.
Yes, 100%. I thought I made that clear in my post. Why? Because T standards are arbitrary and subjective. Who's to say what the appropriate level of T is? And why should a female athlete be forced to artificially change their biology to compete? You said it yourself about T:
So how much T is too much T if the women in athletics have higher T than the general population? How much of an advantage is too much of an advantage? It's simply not something that can be determined.
Here is a bit of philosophy for you, why should we discriminate against a genetically masculinized (sp?) women that through no fault or choice of her own? While they may have an advantage in sport, they likely have disadvantages is other aspects of life.
Again you just can't pick and choose which of the hundreds of natural biological traits to exclude. How tall is too tall, how fast is too fast? Caster Semenya wasn't banned solely because she had too much T. She was banned because she was too fast. Too much T and slow, she doesn't get banned. An xx and xy test is binary, unequivocal and unambiguous.
If the trans lobby would be respectful of XX women having their own spaces, you would see far fewer people being dismissive of trans identity.
There is a need for athletic opportunities for trans people. But those opportunities need to be additive, not redistributive. You can’t just take opportunities away from women, hand them over to trans people, and expect everyone to agree.
Why just females. We should all be both outraged and sane, demanding that men are men and women are women. We can't change reality. Men should be outraged at the disrespect being shown to girls and women.
It’s a fair argument. You’d still have to account for the chromosomes other than xx and xy but it’s relatively simple to lean into it. I note you are double downing on the Rawls objection, however, and you are moving away from athletics as something made through merit and hard work to accident of birth. My objection is that sports then loses meaning if it’s not about something…some events like running or swim racing are then as interesting as a coin flip…the argument for not allowing peds or ftm to compete in the womens category is also undermined since again we are talking accidents of birth
My other question remains: why then not just dump everyone into the human category…everyone in the pool…may the best athlete win.
They will always be redistributive even if you add a new category because money is finite and resources are scarce. It has to come from some place.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
If the ******* lobby would be respectful of ******** people having their own spaces (like **********), you would see far fewer people being dismissive of ******* identity.
Play madlibs with this with whichever sets of descriptors might fit, make sure one of them is "water fountains". Makes for a good thought experiment.
It takes both genetics and merit/hard work , they're not mutually exclusive. Some can compensate for their lack of genetics through hard work. Some will have an easier road to success because of their genetics. Genetics are akin to potential. Genetics may give you a higher ceiling for success, but without the effort you won't reach that ceiling.
Side note: Luck can play a large role in the above.
This is more like a bunch of white guys insisting they get to give the sermon at the local AME church.
Like it
I note the Rawlsian second level objection is that even “hard work” has a genetic component. As a classical liberal myself, I’ve never been able to answer that objection to my own satisfaction
I further note however few are willing to admit the role luck plays so I give you kudos for being so forthright and a good faith player. It undermines the notion that there is virtue to sports. That athletics is about merit.
As illustration the pga case is commonly used in philosophy and jurisprudence courses. The question went to scotus over whether the pga should be forced to provide a golfer with walking disabilities a golf cart. The pga argued part of the game of golf is walking and carrying your clubs. The golfer argued no golf is about wacking the ball (which the pga took exception to because it weakened the case golf is even a sport). So scotus was forced to weigh in on what is the nature, or telos, of golf.
Here the difference is we have different ideas on what is sports. Most people are either hard core merit or hard core luck. Your position is much more nuanced which is fascinating.
Is that in English, Spanish, French, or Latin?
Last edited:
whatithink
GOLD
And money, lots & lots of it ... that can play a huge part in advancement and as a barrier to entry.
Ps there’s a case making its way up which is the inverse of this which is even more fascinating. In recent years, bevcart girls have become a phenomena. Bevcart girls typically sell alcohol at private clubs to older men making their way around the course. These bevcart girls generally make excellent money in tips and are routinely young, beautiful, bubbly and more often than not blonde. Discrimination claims have been filed by older women and men saying they have been discriminated from these “lucrative” roles (though we know they probably won’t pull in as much by tips as the bev cart girls). So the main purpose of the lawsuits is basically to just shut the practice down. The legal question turns on what exactly the bev cart girls are selling: are they selling the experience of flirtation and a fun time on the course (often times the carts are decorated in girly colors for example) or are they just mobile bartenders. What is the purpose, or telos, of the bev cart girls? I fear, at least in the U.S., the bev cart girls are not long for this world.
Again that doubles down on the Rawls objection. If it is a rich man’s game, there is no merit to sport.
whatithink
GOLD
Have to say its fascinating the conversations that have sprung from a rec league in a suburb of Sydney Australia. I'm unsure that it's quite the ripple into (female) worldwide sports that its seems to be getting here!
For ref, the mega team won the final 5-4 - but they did dominate the (small) league games.
For ref, the mega team won the final 5-4 - but they did dominate the (small) league games.
Is it really anything other than a different form of the "nature vs nurture" argument (luck aside)?
I'm generally a very "black and white" person, but nothing is without variables(nuance). I try to play the best odds, so to speak. There is pure luck and then there is luck "when preparation meets opportunity".
whatithink
GOLD
It depends on the level, in this instance its rec level, so its about max participation for health and wellbeing I'd imagine. The league has teams from littles to adults and a turnover that would be eclipsed by clubs in SoCal or even AZ.