Entry 2134, on 2021-06-22 at 19:49:13 (Rating 4, News)
My home country, New Zealand, has hit the headlines around the world recently, but not necessarily for any reason we might welcome. Instead of something exceptional or positive, the reason for the headlines is the inclusion of trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, in the New Zealand Olympic weightlifting team.
Hubbard was born male, and lifted identifying with that gender, but now identifies as female and has achieved much greater success as a result. She (I will use her preferred pronoun here, although I realise that is an issue in itself) ranks quite highly amongst female lifters, and is a realistic chance for a medal in an event where New Zealand has traditionally had limited success.
So is this fair? Is it good? And is this really progress? Well, there don't appear to be many people who have a moderate or nuanced view on this, so clearly some people see it as being very positive, while others view it negatively. The positive people seem to think this is a good move because it gives everyone a fair chance, including trans people. The negatives think it is bad because it *doesn't* give everyone a fair chance, specifically people who were born female.
So both sides want fairness, but have very different ways of looking at it.
In fitting with my libertarian views I say give everyone maximum freedom, and a fair environment to live and work in, until it starts significantly affecting other people's freedom. So Hubbard should be able to compete, as long as it doesn't unfairly affect others.
And that's the next part of the debate: does this represent unfair competition for women? Some people say no, and cite various sources showing little advantage for people who have transitioned from male to female, but others cite other evidence showing that even after transition procedures have reduced the person's testosterone levels, they still have significant advantages in strength.
Note that, according to the current Olympic rules, this is not cheating. All the rules have been followed and Hubbard is eligible to compete. So the New Zealand selectors couldn't really have rejected her without demonstrating some level of bias. But following the rules is not the same as doing the right thing, so should she have been selected?
A case could be made both ways, but on balance I would say no. We do have separate categories for males and females in most sports for a reason, so we should make sure those categories are honoured. But is Hubbard a woman? Well, despite the extreme certainty of the woke community who often state it in absolutes like "she is a woman, full stop", it's not that simple.
In fact, by most objective criteria she isn't a woman; she's a man who wants to live as a woman, and I fully support her in that. But when that preference starts affecting others we should say that's where her right to individual freedom ends. And that isn't transphobic; it's just a statement of scientific fact. And yes, I know that some people quote the cases where a person's sex is genuinely uncertain - even genetically - but that is really just a distraction from this case (and almost every other similar case) which is far less complicated.
There was an article published by one of our leading newspapers this morning which attracted a lot of commentary on Facebook (because the newspaper itself no longer allows comments on its site), but further comments had been disabled because of "transphobic statements". I looked through the comments, and they all seemed pretty respectful actually, so maybe they are more concerned with fair opinions which disagree with their preferred perspective rather than anything genuinely bigoted. To be fair, it is possible that the worst examples had already been removed, but the discussion I saw was actually quite rational.
And it is definitely not just conservatives, bigots, and the ignorant who are against trans people competing in female sport events. Many female athletes are also concerned about it, although many have been told they are not allowed to comment on the subject publicly.
And that is the real problem: yet again debate is stifled in favour of the politically correct perspective. These limitations are enforced by the media, many corporations and companies, and sporting administrators. Is this not a subject where all opinions should be welcome? Should we not be talking about this and trying to find a solution which is fair to all people? Apparently finding a solution is fine, as long as it is a solution the politically correct community approve of; anything else is unacceptable.
As I intimated above, my current opinion is that trans females (who started as male) should not compete in female sport categories, but I am happy to change that opinion if the facts are presented to me which show my concerns are groundless. But how am I going to get a balanced perspective when only one side is encouraged? Sure, there are places where conservative ideas are shared, but those are also biased, but in the opposite direction. Why can't we have open debate in established public forums?
There are two possible answers to this: first, negative comments about trans people are harmful to them, and need to be avoided; and second, the public forums don't want both sides to be presented because they have a particular outcome in mind before the debate even starts.
I think the first reason has some merit, but not much. Really that is used as the excuse to cover the fact that the second is the real, but less acceptable, reason.
In any worthwhile debate there will be statements which might upset people. But the people who are offended should look at themselves as much as the people whose comments upset them. If they don't like opposing views then why look in places where those might exist? And if they are offended they should ask why. In my experience people get most upset at views which oppose theirs, but appear to have an element of truth.
Maybe everyone should fairly consider both sides and realise there are two ways to look at this, and both maximise freedom and fairness in different ways. Like many social issues, this one isn't as simple as the extremists on both sides think.
Comment 1 (6793) by Anonymous on 2021-07-21 at 09:32:54:
It seems very simple: Hubbard is a male, so he should compete as one. Why are you making this so complicated?
Comment 2 (6794) by OJB on 2021-07-21 at 09:41:31:
OK, I don't see it quite as simply as that, but I did arrive at the same conclusion, if you fully read the post. I think biologically Hubbard is male, but socially is female. Which should take precedence? I say biology. What about the non-binary cases of biological sex? That is a distraction from this question, in my opinion. Long story short: Hubbard is a biological male, so should compete in that category.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE