> I'm not sure why you think permission to compete should be the default position over denial until we have more robust studies for competitive advantage. We already know testosterone and male puberty conveys inherent advantage, so the default should be to prove no advantage exists before permitting competition.
There are a lot of genetic factors that convey an inherent advantage. Do we control for all of them or is this one special? I think this video does a good job of highlighting the contradictions inherent in framing this as an issue of fairness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ9YAFYIBOU
> There are a lot of genetic factors that convey an inherent advantage. Do we control for all of them or is this one special?
Yes, testosterone is special because it's a huge advantage. Like, the next closest factor doesn't even come close across most sports. Some women who were born female have naturally high testosterone levels and are barred from competing in women's categories.
Yes, I've seen it, and it does do a good job. Notice the argument being made:
1. Sports is entertainment.
2. Sports is entertaining to the extent that the outcome is unpredictable.
3. We keep it unpredictable by establishing fairness so no one has privileged knowledge of the outcome.
The extreme examples she cites of unfairness were not entertaining exactly because the outcome was predictable. Given sports is to be entertaining due to unpredictability, preserving fairness is critical.
There are a lot of genetic factors that convey an inherent advantage. Do we control for all of them or is this one special? I think this video does a good job of highlighting the contradictions inherent in framing this as an issue of fairness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ9YAFYIBOU