[BostonCard]

We don't generally bat an eye at the fairness of a rich parent installing a basketball court in their mansion and hiring a private shooting tutor to work out with their kid.  That's not really "fair" either.  Parents also routinely mess with holding their kid back so that they will be athletically advantaged over other kids in the same grade, transferring their kids between schools so that they can start or get better coaching or be in a higher division, etc.

Why does this particular brand of unfairness chap your hide in a way that other types of unfairness don't?

That's not to say that there aren't cases where some exclusions might make sense.  World rugby decided to exclude male to female trans players from female teams:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rugby...SKBN26V00Q

With the understanding that data is severely lacking (either to support or oppose), the rationale in terms of safety and the willingness to be open-minded and periodically review the decision makes sense:

Ross Tucker, a sports scientist who sat on a panel advising World Rugby, said the decision was not made lightly and it was not possible to balance inclusion, safety and fairness.
“We genuinely did strive for inclusion (see trans men ‘bypass’), but where it is apparent that it would compromise safety and performance, it cannot be achieved,” Tucker tweeted.
“Categories of sex exist for a reason and with the contact injury risk of rugby, this is the correct decision.”

Of course, that is in an contact sport where there is conceivably a greater risk for injury.  Then again, the article notes that there are no female transsexual athletes competing in World Rugby.

BC
BC

[BostonCard]

We don't generally bat an eye at the fairness of a rich parent installing a basketball court in their mansion and hiring a private shooting tutor to work out with their kid.  That's not really "fair" either.  Parents also routinely mess with holding their kid back so that they will be athletically advantaged over other kids in the same grade, transferring their kids between schools so that they can start or get better coaching or be in a higher division, etc.

Why does this particular brand of unfairness chap your hide in a way that other types of unfairness don't?

That's not to say that there aren't cases where some exclusions might make sense.  World rugby decided to exclude male to female trans players from female teams:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rugby...SKBN26V00Q

With the understanding that data is severely lacking (either to support or oppose), the rationale in terms of safety and the willingness to be open-minded and periodically review the decision makes sense:

Ross Tucker, a sports scientist who sat on a panel advising World Rugby, said the decision was not made lightly and it was not possible to balance inclusion, safety and fairness.
“We genuinely did strive for inclusion (see trans men ‘bypass’), but where it is apparent that it would compromise safety and performance, it cannot be achieved,” Tucker tweeted.
“Categories of sex exist for a reason and with the contact injury risk of rugby, this is the correct decision.”

Of course, that is in an contact sport where there is conceivably a greater risk for injury.  Then again, the article notes that there are no female transsexual athletes competing in World Rugby.

BC
BC