11
DiscussionRules based on physical difference
I've been thinking a lot about the sports issue in the context of a New York Times commenter who explained that society already has the concept of one's actions having consequences that tacitly exclude oneself from certain future paths. The examples they gave were: don't study math at all past high school calculus? ok, then you have a lot of options, but you are not becoming a physicist. Get multiple face tattoos? ok, then don't expect to get a call back if you interview to be a preschool teacher.
I realized there are other areas of life where a bodily difference is respected as a qualification. The one I thought of was pilots. If you have any color vision impairment, you cannot become at least a military pilot and I believe not airline either. This is more common among males than females. It is not an option for you, no matter how passionately you identify as a person with normal color vision. You can still fly as a private pilot. You just can't do it in a way where accommodating an immutable fact about your body takes resources from qualified people and gives them no benefit, only greater risk.
One of my sports has a similar rule. You can't have epilepsy and become a professional divemaster. It is not a thing. An epileptic person CAN go on a closely supervised experience dive, which everyone understands is an accommodation. The answer is not "no under any circumstances forever the end," it is "only where the risks have been mitigated so that the main potential harm is to yourself."
I've flown as a passenger with a guy in this exact position. He had deuteranopia, like 8% of human males. While the Air Force was not a career option for him, he flew GA. I am livid with the euphemism about "not allowing trans people to play sports" when in fact trans-identifying males very much still can play sports alongside women—in recreational open leagues.
I think what you’re describing is a modern-day social issue that goes beyond trans stuff (though trans athletes are an egregious example). There is a reluctance to accept personal limitations that are outside of one’s control. It’s out of his/her control, therefore it’s unfair to hold it against him/her!
Telling someone that they have bad eyesight, or that they’re bad at math—these are simple statements of fact. Some people have always been reluctant to accept their personal limitations with equanimity. More and more, though, it feels like we’re catering to those people. It’s more important to avoid hurting someone’s feelings than it is to uphold standards that exist for a reason.
Lionel Shriver’s recent novel, Mania, is about this problem. (I found Mania pretty thought-provoking, but a little too on-the-nose. Maybe in twenty years that on-the-nose-ness will seem like prescience…time will tell.)
Thanks for the book rec. I might line it up for after a few palate cleansers.