-
Nearly all sports have different classes, be it age, weight, or historical results. If you take part in a competitive sport, you are driven by a desire to measure yourself against others who within those classes. That's the whole point of competitive sport.
There can be no denying that "male genetics" lead to athletes who are faster and stronger than people with "female genetics". That's why they have separate competitions. Even age and training regimens can't overcome that, for example: the top Woman's 100m sprint time is 10.49. That wouldn't even place the runner in the top 22 of Youth (under18) boys times. A 14yo ran 0.02 slower.That said, I'm uneasy with transgender athletes being forced to compete in an "open" category, because that feel like a kick in the teeth and is a denial of your identity.
Is it bigotry to point out that genetics may make people ineligible for particular sport classes?
This is such a divisive contentious issue and it’s painful to watch people arguing.
Isn’t a bigger problem that all competition is inherently unfair. Some sports are better suited to people with certain physiolgies - body proportions, muscle mass (or lack of it) quick twitch/ slow twitch fibres, left or right handed etc etc. Some sports are better suited to different mind sets. Rules in sports are often aimed to reduce the impact of the differences but then at the end of the event a victor is crowned, the person who is considered by the arbitrary rules and metrics of the sport to be better. But it’s impossible to create a level playing field, and if it was done then people may as well turn up and watch a coin toss.
Take away the competitive element and celebrate people’s participation in the activity, their efforts to improve themselves. It’s why I am finding going out riding mountain bikes with friends so rewarding, we acknowledge where each other have ridden well/ found a great line/ ridden a feature that used to inspire fear etc but we are not looking for Strava QOMs/KOMS (which are also not inclusive terms).