11 ms·
This seems hypocritical to me. I kind of get it as a way to level the playing field in one sense (though not, I expect, in many other senses). But their "inclus
by esquivalience 3y ago
This seems hypocritical to me. I kind of get it as a way to level the playing field in one sense (though not, I expect, in many other senses). But their "inclusive language" guide is not internally consistent, and in fact breaks down in the first two paragraphs:
It kicks off saying "Being enhanced isn’t a preference or a lifestyle choice." - but it immediately proceeds to contradict that by emphasising choice: "When we talk about science and being enhanced, we’re not talking about preferences or choices or value judgments" and "Inclusive language is a way of acknowledging and respecting the complete control and autonomy people have over their bodies."
So... Yeah. It really does seem to be a choice.
- gensym 3y agoI think they're even more hypocritical in talking about "inclusivity" because allowing PEDs is the same thing as requiring them since no one who abstains will stand a chance against those who use them. There's no way to be inclusive of those who want to use PEDs and those who would rather not destroy their health with them.
- aeturnum 3y agoI am also skeptical it will "level" the playing field - at best it seems like it will "extend" it? Now athletic ability is the aggregate of natural ability and the ability to select & use drugs - but the genetic predispositions around these new areas won't be evenly distributed either! In addition it makes the gulf created by money even wider.