#372 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday June 8)
Good morning,
TRANSGENDER ATHLETES
I’m going to go on record regarding something many people are thinking but few are willing to say. Gender choices by athletes ought not determine their sex for purpose of competition. It is, of course, unacceptable to speak against a person for whatever gender with which they identify, such openness does not extend to up-ending the structure of women’s sports. Women’s sports have basically followed the forum for identifying the sex (not gender) of the competitor. That sex is based upon the physical aspects of the individual (internal and external sex organs, the presence/absence of sex-related hormones, etc.). It is well-founded that the presence of elevated levels of testosterone enhance performance. A female athlete who was born with male sex organs and hormones has a distinct, perhaps insurmountable, advantage. No less than Martina Navratilova pointed out that, were gender choice the determinant (rather than biological sex at birth) in the days she competed, she would not have achieved what she was able to achieve. It is not necessary to validating a woman’s gender choice that she be permitted to compete against those born with female sexual characteristics and hormones.
There are a number of competing values at play here, not only the right to acknowledge and even celebrate a person’s choice of gender. There is the issue that permitting competition on the basis of chosen gender may well ensure “unbeatability.” Indeed, several of these athletes are so physically superior to those born as women as to make the competition farcical. The right to participate in competitions is not a right but is a privilege. The folks setting up the competition can establish the rules that they think will create a fair playing field. There is an acknowledgement that the presence of male hormones in a female athlete will create an unfair advantage—and so the presence of these hormones can disqualify a competitor. The people against whom this athlete is competing against are rightfully prohibited from utilizing male hormones, steroids and growth hormones to gain unfair advantage. In effect, the current thinking apparently allows someone born with male sex characteristics to become a woman and benefit from the advantages that entails, but doesn’t allow a woman born with female sexual characteristics to become “more like a man” (albeit without changing gender).
All rights have their limitations and all private activities can make rules. If you are a student at UCLA, you can’t compete for USC. If you are a resident of California, you can’t vote in Wyoming. If you were born with male sex characteristics, like it or not, you are entitled to the civil rights accorded to all citizens and you generally should be entitled to equal access to nearly all things. But not necessarily all things.
At the core, there is a cost/benefits analysis at play here. To allow a woman born as a man to compete would seem fair in the absence of other factors. We want to accept these people for who they are, without judgment. But we also want thousands of women to compete in sports and have a reasonable chance of success in that sport. To suggest that those women—the majority of the participants by a wide margin—should be able to compete on a relatively even playing field does not seem too unreasonable a value to maintain.
I recognize that it is ridiculous to posit, as some do, that people would choose to alter their sex at birth to the gender of their choice, just to gain competitive advantage. They make these choices because of who they are. But that choice ought not upset the apple cart for the many women who train and practice to compete with people with roughly the same biological makeup as themselves.
APOLOGIES
My apologies if my use of terminology might foot-fault from accepted language. There is no intent to diminish or disrespect anyone on the basis of their personal choice, sex, or gender. This is a minefield of learning that we all are working our way through. Sometimes, inadvertent mistakes are made. That reminds me of a few other values that should be practiced—patience, understanding, assuming the best intentions of others, and kindness.
WESTERNS
Earlier this year I ran into a friend who said, “what do you think of that dog movie?” By that, I took his question to ask what I thought of The Power of the Dog, Jane Campion’s movie starring Benedict Cumberbatch.
I said I loved it. My friend said he didn’t “despite it being a western, which I usually love.” I defended the movie for various reasons, arguing at the time that it was my choice for Best Picture. First off, I explained that the subject matter found a great palette upon which a complex story could be told (coming of age, self-discovery, confronting uncontrollable rage, family crisis, and repressed sexuality)—namely, an isolated ranch in the West. And second, Westerns aren’t necessarily about “the West.”
High Noon was about standing up to evil in the face of an indifferent, largely uncommitted populace. Deadwood (the TV show) was about civilization meeting head-on with the frontier spirit and the accompanying lawlessness. The Searchers was a story of obsession and acceptance. Silverado was the friendship of four men that transcended their differences to challenge and defeat the evil in their midst—more an evil of people taking advantage of position than indiscriminate violence. The Unforgiven is a story about love and responsibility drawing a person to do something they swore off doing years earlier. They aren’t really westerns at all. They are stories about the human condition.
The story of the Western transcends the West.
CLEVER COMMENTS I’VE RECENTLY SEEN
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” (P.J. O’Rourke)
“Bikini season is just around the corner. Unfortunately, so is the taco truck.”
“When I was a kid, bedtime was 9 pm and I couldn't wait to be a grownup so I could go to bed any time I wanted... turns out that's 9 pm.”
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: