Metric Miler wrote:
This is true, statistically there does seem to be an advantage.
Ok we're making progress.
I never denied there is an advantage either, as you said, I have been neutral. I think it is enjoyable and good to have at least somewhat intelligent discussion about interesting scientific and moral topics such as intersex women in sport. Maybe I like to offer the alternative viewpoint to stimulate conversation. Maybe that differs from the average LR poster who doesn't want to think beyond ideas that make them uncomfortable.
And we take a step back. You have speculated over and over in previous pages that there may not be an advantage. I will say again, you're trying too hard to be the voice of reason and neutral arbiter. So much so that you are ignoring common sense and creating argument where there should be none. There should not be an argument of whether some types of intersex athletes have an advantage. This is plain to see and you believe it too. Yet in your quest to create discussion you have steered it in the wrong direction. Only recently have you started to change course.
"Should we CARE that intersex athletes have an advantage and are way over represented in women's athletics." That seems to be the crux of your new argument. It is relevant and worth discussing, but it's philosophical and cannot be answered by all the studies in the world.
So leaving the advantage question behind I'll address the philosophical question of if we should care. Continuing with your Bolt analogy, is Bolt's advantage over other men the same as Caster's advantage over women? By broadly saying "genetics", yes they're the same. But that answer also applies to a man's advantage over a woman which is universally accepted as unfair. In fact, gender is the ONLY genetic trait universally accepted in athletics as an unfair advantage. My opinion is, if we universally care about a man's advantage over a woman, then we should also care about an intersex advantage over a woman.
Now your response may be, "but the advantage is probably smaller, we don't see intersex winning everything and setting records, and there's not many of them". To that I would say it doesn't matter. As it stands we have a male division and an everyone else division. This current system is unfair to normal females. Even though the intersex population is tiny it appears their advantage is quite large. To make it fair for females we move intersex over to compete in the male side, making it unfair to intersex. It's going to be unfair for someone. Make it unfair for the significantly smaller population.
One open category makes it unfair for everyone not male and it goes against the universal gender divisions. That idea should never be brought up.
An intersex category creates the problem of having an upper and lower boundary. We are having a hard enough time coming up with one gender cutoff, two would be a fiasco. More importantly, an intersex division would just not go over well socially and it's not feasible. Do you split the division only in pro, or also in ncaa and in HS? In the real world it would compound the problems tenfold.