Yes; exploitation exists in professional (paid) sports. How can it not when dollars are at stake? Maybe we're not in concert with the definition of exploitation? "I'm against incentivizing increased harm for anyone, including athletes that are already somewhat exploited". Admirable, but unrealistic.
It's not unrealistic. We do it all the time with regulations and laws that prevent unsafe and exploitative conditions. Practically every new sporting regulation that increases competitor safety is doing exactly what I want. Many existing anti-PED regulations are doing it. Competitor unions primary goal can probably be boiled down to reducing exploitation and harm, both physical and economic - like most unions. Etc etc.
"In cases of exploitation, it's obvious that people need to be saved from their exploiters AND themselves". Really? Why? Are these people being asked to be saved? And what is "saved"? Taking their livery from them because they've made their own life choices that may be riskier to their long term (or short term) outcomes? Risk is reward. Hard work is reward. Humans have pretty simple motivations, at our core. Some have lots to trade for a chance at success; others, not so much. So, they PED up, or they put more risk on the line. So long as they're paid, there's a definition of "exploration" that fits...but, the individual is ok with that deal. Humans will always cheat to get ahead or win. Not all, but some...and that's because there's a financial benefit to do so. Economics. What can be traded for capital/ wealth?
Why don't I have a problem with it? Cause it's a personal choice and only that individual knows if it's worth it for themselves. I'm not one to judge another's balance of life safety. Especially, me...actually.
In this context, "saved" is preventing people from having to make choices that lead to increased harm or increased exploitation. It's easy to think personal choice and personal responsibility is good enough to regulate the balance of risk/exploitation/etc. But we know that it's not from all of the societal structures in place that protect people and their "choices".
Heres a silly example. You are an F1 rookie that just got their big break. The FIA removes all crash-test standards from the rulebook and dramatically lowers the weight limit (for unrealistic reasons that don't matter). The teams start producing cars that are much faster and significantly more dangerous for the driver, cuz they gotta win. Do you risk it? You spent your entire life working to this point thinking the cars were gonna be safe-enough. RedBull is dangling that multi-million dollar contract in your face, asking you to INCREASE the risk to your life beyond what you expected. No pressure though - it's your personal choice.
Should other drivers be allowed to risk it? Would you let your child or partner risk it? Generally, society says no - we dont allow INCREASES in harm in sports (or many other parts of society). Once we've figured out something that increases safety, that thing is not removed.
Your Unlimited class and open use of PEDs is that FIA rule change.
As I'm typing this, I realize we've gone too far into the weeds with this hypothetical. I'm good with moving away from this topic. It's barely applicable to the original topic anymore.
I agreed, or so I I thought. I re-read it a few times and understood your position is to allow trans-acceptance into women's sports based on the inability to decipher who's XX and who's XY. I don't agree that's a strong enough reason to allow blended gender women's sports, especially in light of your plea for "Incentiving increased harm for anyone". The two posts argue discontinuous positions, given the reasons for XY in XX sports are about safety of the competitors. I liked your post for the 2nd paragraph, not the first.
I gave reasons for how bans will negatively impact ciswomen in sports. Do you agree that the harm I presented will/does exist?
I did not give any solution for including transwomen in women's sports. I dont know of a solution, and especially not one that applies to every situation that can arise in sports.
"Safety of competitors" is practically a red-herring, as it applies to so few sports and competitors. The argument can be made for contact sports where there the sport contains an intent to harm your competitors.... which is a small subset of an already tiny population of competitors. Using "safety of competitors" as a reason to ban transwomen from tennis for example is just dumb.
Every sport includes empathy. We feel it when players are hurt. We feel it when teams lose. And we feel when teams and individuals fail at meeting their goals. We all felt it when Damar Hamlin collapsed and each time my friend missed his Olympic Gold in his Olympic downhill runs. Yeah, those hurt. But that's cause we've been there too, even as amateurs. What part of empathy should I have for someone who wants to win so bad, they'll take years off their life to do so? The part that loses the years or the part that wins?
Life is a series of (shitty) compromises. The best we can do is be good to people and each other, and make some jokes about daily life. One day, we won't be able to.
In the case of the competitor that took years off their life to compete, I'll default to love the player and hate the game. I hope that the game can be changed so future competitors don't have to make that choice. The last part seems to be where we differ.