The social norm is what the sports division is based on, though. There's isn't like an "ultraman" category for Phelps to belong to instead, so there's not much to talk about. Given that there is a...
The social norm is what the sports division is based on, though. There's isn't like an "ultraman" category for Phelps to belong to instead, so there's not much to talk about.
Given that there is a lot of gray zone in sex, maybe it's just time to not have a "women's" division. No matter what, if you put a dividing line there it'll be arbitrary and unfairly exclude or include some people.
Women's divisions were created in order to further equity. Prior to their creation it was not acceptable for women to be in sports and perhaps more importantly, women's sports did not see the same...
Women's divisions were created in order to further equity. Prior to their creation it was not acceptable for women to be in sports and perhaps more importantly, women's sports did not see the same kind of investment as men's sports. We don't see it as often, but there are sports leagues which target other kinds of backgrounds as well. The elimination of women's divisions would likely result in a general depression of women's performance in sports because people would refocus their efforts back on the top performers, which are still generally male in most sports and may be entirely a reflection of how the majority of sports funding still goes to men. Men are still generally identified for sports at younger ages and receive more overall funding and training than women.
Realistically what we need to do is stop measuring women by a different stick. We also need to re-examine how we are measuring folks. The idea that anything biological can fall into one of two categories - one being acceptable and the other not being acceptable, is ridiculous. The idea that biological advantages don't outweigh performance enhancing drugs is another idea which is also frankly ridiculous but perhaps outside the scope of this discussion (the amount of PEDs someone with a normal heart might need to compete on the same level as someone with an abnormally large heart is something we don't talk about), let alone the discussion of what's detectable "doping" and what isn't (and what quantifies as doping in the first place). All of these discussions need to happen, however, if we are to think more critically about what's "acceptable" in sports.
You need to measure women by a different stick though. The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is. Trying to equate how we measure men in men's leagues to how...
You need to measure women by a different stick though. The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is. Trying to equate how we measure men in men's leagues to how we measure women in women's leagues is starting from a false premise, because in virtually every sport, there's no advantage to having feminine physiology, but there's a massive advantage to having masculine physiology.
We accept that any natural human biological variation is allowed in men's sports, we, by necessity, don't accept every biological variation in women's sports. It's usually not enough to simply identify as a woman to compete in a women's league, there are biological standards that are applied, which is where this all gets murky.
I disagree. Many of these leagues have existed for ages without defining what a woman is. The idea that we need to define a woman in sports is a modern invention. I don't think definitions are a...
The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is.
I disagree. Many of these leagues have existed for ages without defining what a woman is. The idea that we need to define a woman in sports is a modern invention. I don't think definitions are a necessary component of their existence or their ability to thrive. This article isn't proposing a "fix" and neither am I. I recognize it's a complicated subject, but I agree with the author that we need to stop and think about the people we're talking about- to humanize them. We also need to recognize how little most people actually know about biology and to question whether the route we are taking is an effective one, let alone one born of compassion.
They existed for ages before any semblance of trans acceptance, well before trans people in general felt comfortable being open, let alone competing in a very public sporting event. There was no...
They existed for ages before any semblance of trans acceptance, well before trans people in general felt comfortable being open, let alone competing in a very public sporting event.
There was no widespread knowledge that just because someone looked like a man or a woman to you, your perceptions may or may not be accurate. That's becoming less the case as time goes on.
It seems inevitable if the sports diision groups are "women" and "men", though, that you have to toss biological organisms into two buckets. How would you get around that? How does one measure...
It seems inevitable if the sports diision groups are "women" and "men", though, that you have to toss biological organisms into two buckets. How would you get around that? How does one measure "woman-ness"?
You can keep the two leagues for historic reasons. Just rename it to like "W" and "M" and say both are open to everyone.
This is really what's key to me. I don't agree with all of the decisions about where and when trans women, trans men, nonbinary folks, and people with hormonal or other intersex sorts of statuses...
These narrow definitions not only harm athletes, but sport itself; when Michael Phelps blows every other swimmer out of the water in a race, we do not think twice about it being his natural gifts (his variations) as an athlete. But when a female runner or boxer does the same, suddenly people begin to jump to conclusions about how “female” they really are.
This is really what's key to me. I don't agree with all of the decisions about where and when trans women, trans men, nonbinary folks, and people with hormonal or other intersex sorts of statuses can play various sports.
But it doesnt matter if someone is assigned female at birth, has XX chromosomes, or the perfect level of hormones in their body... Because when they excel they will still be accused of being a man. This happens even in high school or grade school sports especially when a girl goes through puberty early, or dares to be successful enough at a sport against boys.
The social norm is what the sports division is based on, though. There's isn't like an "ultraman" category for Phelps to belong to instead, so there's not much to talk about.
Given that there is a lot of gray zone in sex, maybe it's just time to not have a "women's" division. No matter what, if you put a dividing line there it'll be arbitrary and unfairly exclude or include some people.
Women's divisions were created in order to further equity. Prior to their creation it was not acceptable for women to be in sports and perhaps more importantly, women's sports did not see the same kind of investment as men's sports. We don't see it as often, but there are sports leagues which target other kinds of backgrounds as well. The elimination of women's divisions would likely result in a general depression of women's performance in sports because people would refocus their efforts back on the top performers, which are still generally male in most sports and may be entirely a reflection of how the majority of sports funding still goes to men. Men are still generally identified for sports at younger ages and receive more overall funding and training than women.
Realistically what we need to do is stop measuring women by a different stick. We also need to re-examine how we are measuring folks. The idea that anything biological can fall into one of two categories - one being acceptable and the other not being acceptable, is ridiculous. The idea that biological advantages don't outweigh performance enhancing drugs is another idea which is also frankly ridiculous but perhaps outside the scope of this discussion (the amount of PEDs someone with a normal heart might need to compete on the same level as someone with an abnormally large heart is something we don't talk about), let alone the discussion of what's detectable "doping" and what isn't (and what quantifies as doping in the first place). All of these discussions need to happen, however, if we are to think more critically about what's "acceptable" in sports.
You need to measure women by a different stick though. The existence of women's leagues necessitates defining what exactly a woman is. Trying to equate how we measure men in men's leagues to how we measure women in women's leagues is starting from a false premise, because in virtually every sport, there's no advantage to having feminine physiology, but there's a massive advantage to having masculine physiology.
We accept that any natural human biological variation is allowed in men's sports, we, by necessity, don't accept every biological variation in women's sports. It's usually not enough to simply identify as a woman to compete in a women's league, there are biological standards that are applied, which is where this all gets murky.
I disagree. Many of these leagues have existed for ages without defining what a woman is. The idea that we need to define a woman in sports is a modern invention. I don't think definitions are a necessary component of their existence or their ability to thrive. This article isn't proposing a "fix" and neither am I. I recognize it's a complicated subject, but I agree with the author that we need to stop and think about the people we're talking about- to humanize them. We also need to recognize how little most people actually know about biology and to question whether the route we are taking is an effective one, let alone one born of compassion.
They existed for ages before any semblance of trans acceptance, well before trans people in general felt comfortable being open, let alone competing in a very public sporting event.
There was no widespread knowledge that just because someone looked like a man or a woman to you, your perceptions may or may not be accurate. That's becoming less the case as time goes on.
It seems inevitable if the sports diision groups are "women" and "men", though, that you have to toss biological organisms into two buckets. How would you get around that? How does one measure "woman-ness"?
You can keep the two leagues for historic reasons. Just rename it to like "W" and "M" and say both are open to everyone.
This is really what's key to me. I don't agree with all of the decisions about where and when trans women, trans men, nonbinary folks, and people with hormonal or other intersex sorts of statuses can play various sports.
But it doesnt matter if someone is assigned female at birth, has XX chromosomes, or the perfect level of hormones in their body... Because when they excel they will still be accused of being a man. This happens even in high school or grade school sports especially when a girl goes through puberty early, or dares to be successful enough at a sport against boys.