"Trans people in sports" remains to be a frustrating "debate". On the one side, there are those who know how hormones and human body work; and on the other, transphobes. Science part of this topic one thing, but it is revealing in another way too. I want to discuss the inherent problems of "fair competitions".
What is a fair competition? Being fair broadly refers to equal efforts getting equal outcomes. Cheating is deemed problematic because it violates this, it gets around obstacles everyone else has to struggle. Then, taken to its logical conclusion, a truly fair competition would be one where everyone's obstacle is the exact same, which leads to everyone has exactly equal chance of winning. Once the all internal factors are equalized, the only thing that determines the winner is the external randomness, thus an ideal fair competition would lead to a random outcome with uniform distribution, like rolling an ideal dice or flipping an ideal coin.
There is an obvious problem about this: Competitions are usually supposed to determine who is better at something. A competition with equal outcome cannot do that. And in one way, that seems unfair too. If equal effort means brings equal outcome, then why more effort shouldn't bring a better outcome? This is a very clear contradiction which needs to be solved, but how?
Mario Kart(1992-2016), a racing game series, tries to do it by an item called blue shell. It's an item anyone besides the racer in the first place can obtain and used as a sure way to make the racers in front of the user explode and lose precious speed. This item attracts the hatred of a lot of players. "The game punishes the skill, so it's unfair" so the thought goes. What's happening here is the series taking a very clear stance: This game is not primarily about proving one's skill at racing. It's casual and supposed to be fun for all of the players, because of this regardless of their reflexes are or how much time they have invested in this game everyone gets a chance of victory. Thus, Mario Kart games are actually fair for more players overall, because the competition the series offers is for the sake of itself, for having a good time.
My left hand is weaker and have delayed reflexes. It puts a ceiling to how well I can do in a lot of competitive games. In a fighting game for instance, anyone who is above the beginner skill will defeat me with near certain possibility. Competitions can be only so much fun when one knows they are going to lose. The "blue shell" design would benefit me here a lot, but most games do not have that. They have a cumulative effect on victory. The more one plays, the better they get, which leads them to play more, opening the skill gap. If I used a method to bring myself to the level of someone with average hands, such as a special controller, that would most likely seemed as unfair, because I would be seen as bypassing the skill requirement. That's only partially true though, my the skill requirement is already far higher and what I am doing here is bringing up to myself closer to the normal starting position, not beyond, so that I can enjoy it like anyone else. Otherwise it's like thinking a wheelchair user using elevator is unfair to abled people who can climb stairs.
When competition becomes more serious than games, this line of thinking hurts people much more. A striking example here is exams, where the fairness is supposed to be much more important. Everyone is responsible for the same courses, asked same questions, given equal time, subjected to the same surveillance. The violation of these terms is cheating, such as using an external source of information. The exams are done to determine how much the student has met the goals of the courses, the fairness is entirely defined in the context of the time frame where the exam takes place. In contrast, whether the person the ability to prepare for the exams, such as having a suitable learning environment, mental capability, access to proper material etc. is not relevant here. Nor someone taking private courses is seen as a problem. All that matters is the number on the paper.
What's at play here is a fundamentally different understanding of fairness. It isn't holistic or universal. Only a predefined set of factors are important, the other problems are solely the concern of the individual, which means the hierarchies which create them are fair. As a result, the true function of a "fair competition" from this perspective is to reinforce existing hierarchies, "the best" must be the one that validates the hierarchies "with merit". It's no coincidence then that minorities are a constant target from the angle of competition.
The treatment of Serena Williams is an eye-opening example. Despite having zero evidence about it, she is again and again suspected of doping. This is very blatantly racism, in a special dehumanizing way. Supposedly, the winner is the best and that's fair, but her success is an error for the system. Serena is in a space that excludes her and as such, her very body is seen as illegitimate and unnatural.
It's hard not to draw any parallels to this in trans debate. Watch how hormone therapy is treated like its nuclear mutation. Trans people's genitals, bones, muscles are endlessly questioned, mocked... Their bodies and privacy is violated to no end. That's precisely the purpose of course: It serves to enforce the gender norms and maintain one more sphere of society where trans people are excluded.
To combat this, it's not enough to just respond the bad faith arguments however. Convincing people who trans women join the tournaments under similar hormone levels to cis women is a forward step, but it's still in the very process that dehumanizes trans people in the first place. Trans people should not have to prove anything or choose between their identity and careers. Non-binary people face a blanket exclusion by the system. The gender division itself is what creates these problems.
The fact that women's sports get less attention, prestige and money compared to men's, the excess attention on sportswomen's physical bodies, sports' heavy association with masculinity despite the history of women's divisions are not a coincidences. It's not that a cis woman cannot ever beat a cis man in a physical competition. Certain aspects of human body provides consistent advantages in certain sports, like height in basketball, yet this is not considered unfair. Certain sports already have different categories for weight; there could be easily a similar system where one can participate sports in the certain classes of performance, mass, hormones, age without ever caring for identity. Even chess is divided by gender for the same reason. The idea behind it is the same: "The best" of human must be male.
This doesn't have to be strictly intentional. "Fairness", "effort", "merit" aren't static constructs developed outside of society, they are also part of its structures. When, "the best" matters the most in competitions, it's hard to "the best" not be informed by existing hierarchies. Individual sportspeople has a chance rise to the top by cultivating their own brand, but an amateur club of friends, or even small town teams won't ever rise to high leagues, they can't just keep up with the absurd amount money poured in this business. The only way to make the competition healthy is to stop caring about the best, and focusing on mutual betterment, joy and harmony. Only then, sports can commit themselves to the ideals of peace, friendship, but today, they are a tool of nationalism, racism, capitalism, patriarchy and chauvinism..
Just as there is no fairness in a competition to determine the best, so there is no justice in a society built on hierarchies. Only true solidarity can lead us to betterment of all, not competition between individual brands or enforced collectives.
This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Emelina, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Otakundead and Spencer Gill.
What is a fair competition? Being fair broadly refers to equal efforts getting equal outcomes. Cheating is deemed problematic because it violates this, it gets around obstacles everyone else has to struggle. Then, taken to its logical conclusion, a truly fair competition would be one where everyone's obstacle is the exact same, which leads to everyone has exactly equal chance of winning. Once the all internal factors are equalized, the only thing that determines the winner is the external randomness, thus an ideal fair competition would lead to a random outcome with uniform distribution, like rolling an ideal dice or flipping an ideal coin.
There is an obvious problem about this: Competitions are usually supposed to determine who is better at something. A competition with equal outcome cannot do that. And in one way, that seems unfair too. If equal effort means brings equal outcome, then why more effort shouldn't bring a better outcome? This is a very clear contradiction which needs to be solved, but how?
Mario Kart(1992-2016), a racing game series, tries to do it by an item called blue shell. It's an item anyone besides the racer in the first place can obtain and used as a sure way to make the racers in front of the user explode and lose precious speed. This item attracts the hatred of a lot of players. "The game punishes the skill, so it's unfair" so the thought goes. What's happening here is the series taking a very clear stance: This game is not primarily about proving one's skill at racing. It's casual and supposed to be fun for all of the players, because of this regardless of their reflexes are or how much time they have invested in this game everyone gets a chance of victory. Thus, Mario Kart games are actually fair for more players overall, because the competition the series offers is for the sake of itself, for having a good time.
My left hand is weaker and have delayed reflexes. It puts a ceiling to how well I can do in a lot of competitive games. In a fighting game for instance, anyone who is above the beginner skill will defeat me with near certain possibility. Competitions can be only so much fun when one knows they are going to lose. The "blue shell" design would benefit me here a lot, but most games do not have that. They have a cumulative effect on victory. The more one plays, the better they get, which leads them to play more, opening the skill gap. If I used a method to bring myself to the level of someone with average hands, such as a special controller, that would most likely seemed as unfair, because I would be seen as bypassing the skill requirement. That's only partially true though, my the skill requirement is already far higher and what I am doing here is bringing up to myself closer to the normal starting position, not beyond, so that I can enjoy it like anyone else. Otherwise it's like thinking a wheelchair user using elevator is unfair to abled people who can climb stairs.
When competition becomes more serious than games, this line of thinking hurts people much more. A striking example here is exams, where the fairness is supposed to be much more important. Everyone is responsible for the same courses, asked same questions, given equal time, subjected to the same surveillance. The violation of these terms is cheating, such as using an external source of information. The exams are done to determine how much the student has met the goals of the courses, the fairness is entirely defined in the context of the time frame where the exam takes place. In contrast, whether the person the ability to prepare for the exams, such as having a suitable learning environment, mental capability, access to proper material etc. is not relevant here. Nor someone taking private courses is seen as a problem. All that matters is the number on the paper.
What's at play here is a fundamentally different understanding of fairness. It isn't holistic or universal. Only a predefined set of factors are important, the other problems are solely the concern of the individual, which means the hierarchies which create them are fair. As a result, the true function of a "fair competition" from this perspective is to reinforce existing hierarchies, "the best" must be the one that validates the hierarchies "with merit". It's no coincidence then that minorities are a constant target from the angle of competition.
The treatment of Serena Williams is an eye-opening example. Despite having zero evidence about it, she is again and again suspected of doping. This is very blatantly racism, in a special dehumanizing way. Supposedly, the winner is the best and that's fair, but her success is an error for the system. Serena is in a space that excludes her and as such, her very body is seen as illegitimate and unnatural.
It's hard not to draw any parallels to this in trans debate. Watch how hormone therapy is treated like its nuclear mutation. Trans people's genitals, bones, muscles are endlessly questioned, mocked... Their bodies and privacy is violated to no end. That's precisely the purpose of course: It serves to enforce the gender norms and maintain one more sphere of society where trans people are excluded.
To combat this, it's not enough to just respond the bad faith arguments however. Convincing people who trans women join the tournaments under similar hormone levels to cis women is a forward step, but it's still in the very process that dehumanizes trans people in the first place. Trans people should not have to prove anything or choose between their identity and careers. Non-binary people face a blanket exclusion by the system. The gender division itself is what creates these problems.
The fact that women's sports get less attention, prestige and money compared to men's, the excess attention on sportswomen's physical bodies, sports' heavy association with masculinity despite the history of women's divisions are not a coincidences. It's not that a cis woman cannot ever beat a cis man in a physical competition. Certain aspects of human body provides consistent advantages in certain sports, like height in basketball, yet this is not considered unfair. Certain sports already have different categories for weight; there could be easily a similar system where one can participate sports in the certain classes of performance, mass, hormones, age without ever caring for identity. Even chess is divided by gender for the same reason. The idea behind it is the same: "The best" of human must be male.
This doesn't have to be strictly intentional. "Fairness", "effort", "merit" aren't static constructs developed outside of society, they are also part of its structures. When, "the best" matters the most in competitions, it's hard to "the best" not be informed by existing hierarchies. Individual sportspeople has a chance rise to the top by cultivating their own brand, but an amateur club of friends, or even small town teams won't ever rise to high leagues, they can't just keep up with the absurd amount money poured in this business. The only way to make the competition healthy is to stop caring about the best, and focusing on mutual betterment, joy and harmony. Only then, sports can commit themselves to the ideals of peace, friendship, but today, they are a tool of nationalism, racism, capitalism, patriarchy and chauvinism..
Just as there is no fairness in a competition to determine the best, so there is no justice in a society built on hierarchies. Only true solidarity can lead us to betterment of all, not competition between individual brands or enforced collectives.
This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Emelina, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Otakundead and Spencer Gill.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder