They have men's events.Is it condescending to have separate women's events? You're right, it's a difficult one.
(
edjogs Collared doves are shit.,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:12,
archived)
That's something else I've been thinking about.Because exactly the same could be said about sex-segregated events.
If what we want is a demonstration of being fast, strong, high, or whatever, then it's not obvious why the sex of the fast, strong, or high person should matter. Though, of course, this would mean that in many, if not most, events, men would dominate. Women might still be able to compete and have a reasonable chance of winning in some sports, but not as many. Maybe most sport just is essentially sexist in a way that, say, mathematics isn't*.
If that's unacceptable, then there must be something else we want from sport. But then the question is raised about what it is that people value about sport if its not a display of strength, speed, or whatever. Answering that would perhaps help us answer the questions about paralympics, too. There's a range of candidate answers, but each brings its own questions.
Note, too, that Pistorius and Semenya have, in their own ways, already contributed to blurring the line between mainstream and para-sport, and male and female sport. We know that a lot of people have a different sexual phenotype to what their genomes would suggest - the human body is a strange thing. It could be that our traditional easy distinction of sexes is in trouble anyway for wholly biological reasons.
tl;dr version: the philosophy of sport is trickier than I thought.
*By which I mean the subject in itself, not the way the academy or wider culture handles it, which may well be highly sexist.
(If what we want is a demonstration of being fast, strong, high, or whatever, then it's not obvious why the sex of the fast, strong, or high person should matter. Though, of course, this would mean that in many, if not most, events, men would dominate. Women might still be able to compete and have a reasonable chance of winning in some sports, but not as many. Maybe most sport just is essentially sexist in a way that, say, mathematics isn't*.
If that's unacceptable, then there must be something else we want from sport. But then the question is raised about what it is that people value about sport if its not a display of strength, speed, or whatever. Answering that would perhaps help us answer the questions about paralympics, too. There's a range of candidate answers, but each brings its own questions.
Note, too, that Pistorius and Semenya have, in their own ways, already contributed to blurring the line between mainstream and para-sport, and male and female sport. We know that a lot of people have a different sexual phenotype to what their genomes would suggest - the human body is a strange thing. It could be that our traditional easy distinction of sexes is in trouble anyway for wholly biological reasons.
tl;dr version: the philosophy of sport is trickier than I thought.
*By which I mean the subject in itself, not the way the academy or wider culture handles it, which may well be highly sexist.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 13 Aug 2012, 16:25,
archived)