2 ms·

> Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete as a woman. Hubbard identifies as a woman. In what way is Vanbellinghen not questioning Hubbard's i

by Veen 5y ago

> Vanbellinghen is asserting that Hubbard should not compete as a woman. Hubbard identifies as a woman. In what way is Vanbellinghen not questioning Hubbard's identity? Women who take performance enhancing drugs are also disqualified from competing. No one is challenging their identity as a woman, just the fairness of their competing against women without that advantage. It is not a moral prohibition against consuming certain substances, but a practical prohibition because it makes competing on a level playing field impossible. The same is true of trans atheletes. They have an advantage other women do not. Women's sports were invented precisely for that reason: natal males have an advantage that means most natal females are not competetive against them in most sports.

ALittleLight 5y ago
Vanbellinghen is not saying Hubbard used steroids. Physical differences or biological advantages between competitors aren't ever considered reasons to exclude a competitor. People who are gifted with strong and healthy bodies can become world class competitors with enough training and dedication. A swimmer isn't disqualified for being unusually tall, a sprinter unusually lean, a gymnast petite, etc. Imagine a woman born with only one arm complaining that Vanbellinghen had an insurmountable natural advantage in weight lifting. The one armed woman would be correct. There is a Special Olympics where disabled people can compete and it would be incredibly unfair for fully-abled competitors to enter the Special Olympics. Analogously there is an Olympic division where Hubbard could fairly compete (the men's) and another division where Hubbard has an unfair advantage (the women's). If Hubbard is a woman then Hubbard has a distinct natural advantage. To wit, Hubbard was born and developed physiologically as a man. Hubbard didn't attain this advantage unfairly by using steroids. We don't disqualify any other competitor because of the physiological advantages of their natural bodies. Why should Hubbard be disqualified? The only coherent argument is that Hubbard is not actually a woman and should compete in the men's division. This is a denial of Hubbard's identity.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  It feels like you are deliberately trying to conflate issues that don't need to be conflated. Not even taking transgenderism into account, I think it is a very difficult problem of how to handle people have been born with intersex characteristics in sports. On the one hand, the argument can be made "how is this different than other natural variation that makes someone good at sports", but on the other hand, since testosterone has such a powerful effect, it means that women sports can only be won by those with a genetic abnormality that causes high testosterone (a couple of years ago all three of the top finishers at an international track and field competition were intersex - I'm blanking on the competition but Caster Semenya was one of them). No one needs to deny their identity as woman to also question whether, in one example, internal testes gives someone an unfair advantage in women's sports.

by Veen 5y ago

ALittleLight 5y ago

Vanbellinghen is not saying Hubbard used steroids. Physical differences or biological advantages between competitors aren't ever considered reasons to exclude a competitor. People who are gifted with strong and healthy bodies can become world class competitors with enough training and dedication. A swimmer isn't disqualified for being unusually tall, a sprinter unusually lean, a gymnast petite, etc. Imagine a woman born with only one arm complaining that Vanbellinghen had an insurmountable natural advantage in weight lifting. The one armed woman would be correct. There is a Special Olympics where disabled people can compete and it would be incredibly unfair for fully-abled competitors to enter the Special Olympics. Analogously there is an Olympic division where Hubbard could fairly compete (the men's) and another division where Hubbard has an unfair advantage (the women's). If Hubbard is a woman then Hubbard has a distinct natural advantage. To wit, Hubbard was born and developed physiologically as a man. Hubbard didn't attain this advantage unfairly by using steroids. We don't disqualify any other competitor because of the physiological advantages of their natural bodies. Why should Hubbard be disqualified? The only coherent argument is that Hubbard is not actually a woman and should compete in the men's division. This is a denial of Hubbard's identity.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
It feels like you are deliberately trying to conflate issues that don't need to be conflated. Not even taking transgenderism into account, I think it is a very difficult problem of how to handle people have been born with intersex characteristics in sports. On the one hand, the argument can be made "how is this different than other natural variation that makes someone good at sports", but on the other hand, since testosterone has such a powerful effect, it means that women sports can only be won by those with a genetic abnormality that causes high testosterone (a couple of years ago all three of the top finishers at an international track and field competition were intersex - I'm blanking on the competition but Caster Semenya was one of them). No one needs to deny their identity as woman to also question whether, in one example, internal testes gives someone an unfair advantage in women's sports.