This thread turned into a head fuck.
But I think it became illustrative of why reasoning based on vague claims and the emotionally manipulative catch all of
be kind!
fails.
So far, we have seen plenty of noise using fallacious argument points that all end up showing the person arguing does not understand competition. We have seen this with some expert activists regular in media or social media. It is a script that covers the following :
‘sex categories in humans are complicated’
’sport is for all people, it is a human right’
’but whatabout all these other competitors, they have natural advantages too?’
‘it is only a few, why is this considered an issue at all!’
’but sometimes they lose to female athletes’
’not all female athletes agree that this group should be excluded’
‘But these athletes can’t compete with male athletes!’
All of these fail because they are based on fallacies, are factually incorrect or they fail even at a philosophical level.
’sex categories in humans are complicated’
For the purpose of who gets access to protected category of sport, sex categorisation in humans is based on whether or not the human has the ability to produce and/or process testosterone in the typical male range.
This is reliably done with the SRY screen and then with any further investigation that is also going to produce a reliable result.
Sport categories that are protected to allow that protected group to have fair competition have defined boundaries that are outlined in regulation. That is their exact nature of protection.
If a protected category exists at all, it must be for a purpose and definable. Entry to that category is also not based on beliefs that are not measurable.
The female sports categories are protected to allow female people to have fair competition and for physical safety.
Other protected categories in sport are: age group, country specific, sports for athletes with specified disabilities, skill levels. amateur vs professional.
’sport is for all people, it is a human right’
This one is a misrepresentation and is often misused. Sport access is a human right but no person has the right to compete in a protected category that they have been assessed not to belong to.
This argument continually ignores that part.
There is also limitations to human rights claims where that claim will cause harm to others. Male people claiming it is their human right to play sport in a protected category they don’t qualify for, also ignore the limitations that define this ‘rights’ claim.
Those athletes can still play sport! They are not ‘banned’ from sport.
Juat like every other person though, they have to play sport in the category they belong in.
If they have to accept they cannot play in the category they wanted to, so too do many other people who also have to deal with the same news that a protected category is not available for them to compete in.
’but whatabout all these other competitors, they have natural advantages too?’
This is the Phelps fallacy. It is a fallacy because it ignores that natural body variation within a sports category is allowable and that even Phelps was beaten. Just because someone has an extraordinary naturally derived feature doesn’t mean that another person within that category doesn’t have a feature or combination of feature that will also produce a performance to compete.
The key for sex categories is that no female person will have access to the advantages derived from having a male body producing and utilising typical levels of testosterone even from early childhood.
I posted quite a few expert explanations about why this is a fallacy upthread that explains this far better than I can.
‘it is only a few, why is this considered an issue at all!’
It only takes a ‘few’ to cause significant harm to others.
It only takes ‘one’ to set a record that no female athlete will be able to break.
It only takes one to displace thousands of female athletes to get to an elite competition. Semenya displaces thousands of female athletes in his own country to get to international representation level.
It only took 3 to take all podium places in one race at the 2016 Olympics.
It only takes one to cause injuries to other players that a female person would not be likely to have the physical advantages to cause. One male player in a Sydney football league causes numerous reported injuries to female players in one season. One was career stopping for that female player, I believe. It was preventable.
’but sometimes they lose to female athletes’
Another fallacy because it fails to consider the protected category boundary.
As Ross Tucker says, if a Tour de France cyclist rides an electric powered cycle and still doesn’t win, did that cyclist have an advantage? Of course they had a fucking advantage.
Having an unfair competitive physical advantage doesn’t mean you are going to win! But ‘winning’ is not the over riding definition for whether a competitive advantage should be allowed or not into a protected characteristic.
Should a mediocre competitor get to compete in a protected category just because they may not win? Should a mediocre adult runner compete in the under 12 race ‘because they don’t win’???
’not all female athletes agree that this group should be excluded’
This is an irrelevant argument because consent is not transferable.
There is no democratic decision either as to whether a person outside the protected sports category should or should not access that sports category.
‘But these athletes can’t compete with male athletes!’
This is a falsity for several reasons. Including that there is no recognised reason that a group of male people cannot perform at an elite level with 5ARD as an example. There has not been found to be a limiting factor physically.
If also is a falsity because for that statement to be meaningful, what it requires is more detail.
But these athletes can’t compete with male athletes = But these athletes can’t compete with male athletes and win.
Of course those male athletes can compete in male sporting events. Mediocre male athletes enjoy sport all the time.
It is the unsaid bit, the ‘and win’, that makes all the difference.
This argument revolves around providing a male athlete with the opportunity to ‘win’.
For all of the above, if none of those flawed and false arguments work, the activist script then resorts to ad hominem attacks, name calling, insults etc.
The script hasn’t changed much over the years I have watched it.