Here’s a reality-based, principle-driven response to the claim “biological men who identify as women should be allowed to play in women’s sports.”
Clarify the claim (Meta Model)
- Define terms: “biological men” = male sex, typically XY with male-range puberty; “women’s sports” = a protected competitive category whose purpose is to give female athletes a fair field given average male–female performance deltas after puberty [1].
- Specify “should be allowed”: Allowed by whom—leagues, schools, or the state? Under what eligibility rules? For which sports (contact vs. non-contact), levels (youth, scholastic, elite), and developmental stages (pre- vs. post-puberty)? [2].
- Identify the standard: Are we optimizing for fairness and safety, inclusion, competitive excellence, participation rates, or some weighted combination? “Should” depends on the explicit goal and evidence about trade-offs [1].
Objectivist framework (facts first, justice in evaluation, rights respected)
- Primacy of existence: Policy must track biological realities that affect performance—strength, speed, VO2max, hemoglobin, skeletal leverage—especially after male-range puberty, because these are causal facts, not opinions [2].
- Justice and purpose: The women’s category exists to secure a fair opportunity for female athletes; rules that erase the purpose of a category are unjust because they drop context and obliterate measurement (turning a performance continuum into a political label) [1].
- Individual rights and voluntary association: Private leagues and schools should be free to set objective, non-arbitrary eligibility rules that serve the sport’s purpose; the state should not force ideological criteria that contradict biological facts or the category’s mission [2].
- Keep full context: Policies should be sport-specific, level-specific, and grounded in evidence about safety, performance gaps, and participation effects, not in blanket affirmations or blanket bans [1].
Key factual considerations
- Post-puberty male physiology confers durable average advantages (e.g., lean mass, bone geometry, tendon stiffness, power output) that often persist even with later hormone suppression; this matters more in power/speed/contact sports and less in skill-dominant domains [2].
- The function of sex-separated sport is to maintain meaningful competition; if typical male-puberty advantages are admitted into the women’s field, the category’s competitive meaning is undermined, and female participation and safety can be harmed in many sports [1].
- Pre-puberty athletes do not manifest the same dimorphism; policy can distinguish pre- and post-puberty fairly without equivocation [2].
A reality-based policy stance
- Preserve the women’s category for female-sex athletes, with a clear, objective puberty criterion: athletes who have undergone male-range puberty should not compete in the women’s category at levels and in sports where known performance gaps would defeat the category’s purpose [1].
- Provide an Open category (or coed division) for anyone regardless of sex or identity; this maximizes inclusion without sacrificing the integrity of the women’s category and respects freedom of association for organizers and athletes [2].
- Make policies sport- and level-specific: contact and collision sports warrant stricter protections for safety; precision/skill sports may admit more flexibility if data show negligible advantage; anchor decisions to measured performance effects, not slogans [1].
- Allow reasonable accommodations in recreational contexts (e.g., local leagues) where safety and competitive stakes are lower, while keeping performance-protective rules in scholastic, collegiate, and elite settings; this integrates inclusion with the category’s purpose [2].
- Regularly review rules against new evidence; classify claims as arbitrary/possible/probable/certain, and update—neither freeze dogma nor ignore emerging data [1].
Why this meets both justice and inclusion
- It treats human differences as they are (measurement, degrees, causality), not as binaries or purely self-referential labels; that is the only way to practice fairness without evasion [2].
- It respects everyone’s rights by avoiding state-imposed coercion while empowering leagues to set objective standards that fulfill the women’s category’s purpose; no one’s identity claims become a license to nullify others’ competitive rights [1].
- It avoids package-deal thinking: supporting a protected women’s category is not “anti-inclusion”; it is pro-justice-in-sport, paired with an Open division to include those outside sex-protected eligibility while preserving the category’s meaning [2].
Bottom line
- A reality-based, rights-respecting policy is: protect the women’s category for female-sex athletes (especially post-puberty), create an Open division for inclusivity, tailor by sport and level, and let voluntary institutions—not political decrees—set and refine rules by evidence and purpose [1][2].
Sources
1 Conquer Your Negative Thoughts by Daniel G, Amen
2 Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff
No comments:
Post a Comment