"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Friday, August 26, 2016

Letter to the Editor, The Guardian, Response to Sisonke Msimang’s "Caster Semenya is the one at a disadvantage"




24 August 2016   



The Guardian
Letters Editor
guardian.letters@theguardian.com

RE:  Sisonke Msimang’s Caster Semenya is the one at a disadvantage, 24 August 2016, 08.00 BST, http://tinyurl.com/hf5mh6p

Dear Letters Editor & Sisonke Msimang,

In Caster Semenya is the one at a disadvantage, Sisonke Msimang wrote: “The idea that testosterone levels could constitute an unfair advantage in this climate is laughable.” Msimang is entirely wrong. Nearly every Olympic sport divides competitors by sex, i.e., holding separate men’s and women’s competitions.

Why? The justification for that rigid separation of the sexes is not rooted in historical precedents handed down from the Olympics of the ancient Greeks. Nor is it rooted in some religious tradition’s mandating a particularistic and antiquated contestable conception of morality in public places. Rather, the justification for separate men’s and women’s sports competitions comes from the widespread recognition that men and women have highly significant biological differences, including systematically different levels of testosterone. If different testosterone levels did not obviously confer a great advantage on men, then there would be no good reason to hold separate women-only Olympic events. Indeed, if different testosterone levels did not confer great advantage on men, modernity, secularity, and simple fairness would compel our ending sex-segregated sports events.

Bottom line: testosterone counts.

Sincerely,


Seth Barrett Tillman 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/SethBTillman ( @SethBTillman ) 


The letter above was submitted to The Guardian. But it has not been published, at least not yet. See also Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, The Guardian, Response to Sisonke Msimang’s Caster Semenya is the one at a disadvantage, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2829314






No comments: