Why are there no platypuses at the Olympics?: A teleological case for athletes with disorders of sexual development to compete within their sex category

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In mid-2019, the controversy regarding South African runner Caster Semenya’s eligibility to participate in competitions against other female runners culminated in a Court of Arbitration for Sport judgement. Semenya possessed high endogenous testosterone levels (arguably a performance advantage), secondary to a disorder of sexual development. In this commentary, Aristotelean teleology is used to defend the existence of ‘male’ and ‘female’ as discrete categories. It is argued that once the athlete’s sex is established, they should be allowed to compete in the category of their sex without obligatory medical treatment. Indeed, other athletes who possess advantageous genetic or phenotypic traits that fall outside of the human norm have been allowed to compete as humans without restraint. In both cases, if an athlete possesses the essential attributes of being a human or being male or female they should be permitted to compete in those respective categories; athletes’ eligibilities should not be based upon accidental attributes.
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-06-22
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
147 ( #37,879 of 64,205 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #33,530 of 64,205 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.