superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 11,547
I find these sports league inclusion issues to be thorny and probably unanswerable, because they inhere in the very concept of women's sports. nyc, I know you were a competitive athlete and you might object a bit to my initial framing but bear with me, I think I will account for your concerns and if not I'd be happy to hear them.
1. Women's sports are basically a lesser sports league. They don't have to be, as there are some things that women do better than men, but in the most popular sports worldwide, men are better than women. So analytically, they are similar to those men's basketball leagues where everyone has to be 6'4" or under. The entire league exists only by virtue of filtering out players because they are too good.
In these cases, there will always be a line-drawing problem in a way there's not for the NBA. There are, of course, genetic differences between people. A 5'10" male is orders of magnitude less likely to be a professional basketball player than a 6'10" male. But we don't worry about that. Those shorter guys can play sports where size is at less of a premium like soccer. And if they can't make it there, we say, "he's not an athlete." Tom Cruise is apparently a great runner and with training could be a sprinter but he's like 5'5" so nope. That's OK. He instead became an actor who runs.
2. The reason we have women's sports is because we think gender is important. There's no objective reason we should open doors for girls to play but not midgets; that's a society-wide value that fairness matters in this context. It's OK to be consigned to a non-athlete fate if you're a short man, but not if you're a woman. There's no real justification of that; it's a preference.
Note that "it's a preference" is not arguing against it. Lots of things that are fundamental in our society are preferences. We have legal protections for discrimination on account of race; not on account of stupidity. Why? Some people try to make an argument along the lines that "diversity is good" but that really only gets to de jure racial discrimination. If we would all lose because of discrimination, one would expect the market to compensate (the Gary Becker argument, which is relevant today because its predictions have been wildly wrong). We think of racial discrimination as a matter of fairness, as exemplified by the number of people who concede that affirmative action was once justified but isn't now. That basically translates as "racism does create unfairness and unfairness should be compensated; it just doesn't exist anymore."
Similarly, there is no objective reason why religious belief should be protected over, say, aesthetic taste. That's a preference. There's no objective reason why there should be a categorical bar on quartering troops (3rd Amendment) when "taxing to pay for barracks" is an alternative. Incidentally, quartering would probably be cheaper overall, but anyway -- we don't want soldiers living in our spare bedrooms unless we choose it. Preference.
3. But when you draw lines based on fairness and preferences, it will automatically invite line drawing problems that definitionally cannot be solved. There will always be exceptions. For instance, should albino black people be protected by civil rights laws? A friend of mine married an albino black woman; she looks exactly white and even if you know she's albino you couldn't tell what race. I would think she has never been discriminated against on the basis of her skin color ever. But she grew up in a black family and thus experienced everything that happens there -- her grandparents were probably redlined (or even her parents); she was probably more likely to have an incarcerated family member, etc. So should she be protected by civil rights laws? It's a preference. There's no right answer. It depends on why we have civil rights laws. I know where I come down on this (include her) but it is not ordained by logic.
And there are always exceptions in gender. Not just trans or even primarily trans -- it's XXY genes that are the most troublesome. And you can't answer the question "should XXY people be allowed to compete in women's sports" without specifying why we have women's sports, which we are reluctant to do because neither side wants to admit that the real answer is "social preference." Which isn't to say that there are no reasons behind the preferences, but those reasons exist within a discourse defined by an assumption that people should have special treatment because of gender but not height or fast twitch muscles or whatever.
4. That's why participation in sports is a hard question. It's also why this Scotus is guaranteed not to take the student's side, I think -- or close to guaranteed I guess. They aren't going to suddenly be pro-trans in the area where it's hardest to be pro-trans.
1. Women's sports are basically a lesser sports league. They don't have to be, as there are some things that women do better than men, but in the most popular sports worldwide, men are better than women. So analytically, they are similar to those men's basketball leagues where everyone has to be 6'4" or under. The entire league exists only by virtue of filtering out players because they are too good.
In these cases, there will always be a line-drawing problem in a way there's not for the NBA. There are, of course, genetic differences between people. A 5'10" male is orders of magnitude less likely to be a professional basketball player than a 6'10" male. But we don't worry about that. Those shorter guys can play sports where size is at less of a premium like soccer. And if they can't make it there, we say, "he's not an athlete." Tom Cruise is apparently a great runner and with training could be a sprinter but he's like 5'5" so nope. That's OK. He instead became an actor who runs.
2. The reason we have women's sports is because we think gender is important. There's no objective reason we should open doors for girls to play but not midgets; that's a society-wide value that fairness matters in this context. It's OK to be consigned to a non-athlete fate if you're a short man, but not if you're a woman. There's no real justification of that; it's a preference.
Note that "it's a preference" is not arguing against it. Lots of things that are fundamental in our society are preferences. We have legal protections for discrimination on account of race; not on account of stupidity. Why? Some people try to make an argument along the lines that "diversity is good" but that really only gets to de jure racial discrimination. If we would all lose because of discrimination, one would expect the market to compensate (the Gary Becker argument, which is relevant today because its predictions have been wildly wrong). We think of racial discrimination as a matter of fairness, as exemplified by the number of people who concede that affirmative action was once justified but isn't now. That basically translates as "racism does create unfairness and unfairness should be compensated; it just doesn't exist anymore."
Similarly, there is no objective reason why religious belief should be protected over, say, aesthetic taste. That's a preference. There's no objective reason why there should be a categorical bar on quartering troops (3rd Amendment) when "taxing to pay for barracks" is an alternative. Incidentally, quartering would probably be cheaper overall, but anyway -- we don't want soldiers living in our spare bedrooms unless we choose it. Preference.
3. But when you draw lines based on fairness and preferences, it will automatically invite line drawing problems that definitionally cannot be solved. There will always be exceptions. For instance, should albino black people be protected by civil rights laws? A friend of mine married an albino black woman; she looks exactly white and even if you know she's albino you couldn't tell what race. I would think she has never been discriminated against on the basis of her skin color ever. But she grew up in a black family and thus experienced everything that happens there -- her grandparents were probably redlined (or even her parents); she was probably more likely to have an incarcerated family member, etc. So should she be protected by civil rights laws? It's a preference. There's no right answer. It depends on why we have civil rights laws. I know where I come down on this (include her) but it is not ordained by logic.
And there are always exceptions in gender. Not just trans or even primarily trans -- it's XXY genes that are the most troublesome. And you can't answer the question "should XXY people be allowed to compete in women's sports" without specifying why we have women's sports, which we are reluctant to do because neither side wants to admit that the real answer is "social preference." Which isn't to say that there are no reasons behind the preferences, but those reasons exist within a discourse defined by an assumption that people should have special treatment because of gender but not height or fast twitch muscles or whatever.
4. That's why participation in sports is a hard question. It's also why this Scotus is guaranteed not to take the student's side, I think -- or close to guaranteed I guess. They aren't going to suddenly be pro-trans in the area where it's hardest to be pro-trans.
