Week 6 (8) FINAL Flashcards
What’s the difference between the natural and the normative definitions of ‘disability’?
Nature Definition = health and normal ability is when someone can perform all typical physiological functions with typical efficiency (typical = natural for human beings)
Normative Definition = not just what’s natural, but what a culture happens to value. Therefore, what is considered normal can shift/change as you move around the world
Why do van Hilvoorde and Landeweerd claim that the normative definition of ‘disability’ makes ‘disability’ political?
if you think normative approach is the right approach, then this will affect your political values of the society you live in.
Our society = free market, value individualism, value self-sufficiency -> therefore, when people need assistance from community or are not part of the mass market, they are not ‘normal’ or inferior from normal because they inferfere with capitalism. (people can be considered better than normal, ex. ppl who generate wealth for others like elite athletes who generate revenue for themselves and for their team)
According to ‘the standard view,’ what should determine whether Pistorius is allowed to compete against athletes with legs (in the regular Olympics, for example)?
the argument hinges on whether the blades give him an unfair advantage over his competitors
Why do van Hilvoorde and Landeweerd think that the issue of whether blades make Pistorius run faster than legs is irrelevant to the question of whether it’s fair for him to compete against able-bodied athletes? What is an objection to their view?
it doesnt matter if it made him faster, because they require less energy to run compared to running with legs, and that is not a reason to keep him out of the Olympics. VanLan compares it to Klapskates that require less energy than regular skates in speed skating
Objection: theres a big difference between the blades and the Klapskates - all skaters had an option to use them, where as not all runners can loose their legs to get blades. Therefore, it is unfair because it gives him an advantage that not everyone else has access to
How does Tannsjo respond to the claim that sex-discrimination in sports should be permitted because sex-discrimination is like weight classes in sports?
Weight classes focus on relevant physical characteristics - they make for performance differences. Gender and sex do not. It is not the fact that a woman runs more slowly becasue shes a woman, but because of shorter legs, lower VO2 max, larger q angle, etc. These traits (not sex/gender) are what effect performance. They should keep weight classes in boxing in order to account for performance differences, but get rid of gender classes, and if they can’t then they should get rid of boxing.
How does Tannsjo respond to the claim that sex-discrimination in sports should be permitted because men will be violent if women beat them?
It would be controlled violence with harsher penalties for violent outbursts in sports and agressive sports changed to make aggresive behaviour unacceptable
Example: in tennis an agressive serve is a good tactical strategy, but if there was a rule that a legit serve must be returned, then the sport is less aggressive
How does Tannsjo respond to the claim that sex-discrimination in sports should be permitted because the very best women will be consistently beaten by more average male athletes, and that will be discouraging for the women?
1) We don’t know that this will actually happen. The apparent advantages may not be biological but due to socially constructed gender differences
2) If average men are better, that still doesn’t mean we need to have categories because:
-> a) black people are better at some sports than white people (maybe due to genentics) but white people don’t get mad, and its not a reson to introduce racial categories in sport
-> b) suppose in philosophy due to a biological factor women were underrepresented - disappointing but it would be absurd to gender seperate philosophy
How does Tannsjo respond to the claim that sex-discrimination in sports should be permitted because female sports, like male sports, have unique value?
this is mostly false, and when it is true, it’s not true enough to warrant discrimination
1. It’s false because masculinity is the ideal for most current sports (including female versions of the sports). If women are bettern than men at something, it’s never celebrated and women are jusst doing weaker versions of the male sport (theres no “special feminine qualities)
2. even if they do have that special quality, they’re only demonstrated because brute force doesn’t displace them (like in male sport). They’re not uniquely feminine, and if we are to vlaue them, then teh effects of strength and agressiveness need to be moderated across the board - may inlcude changing rules, eliminating certain sports
Why does Tannsjo think that ‘male virtues’, if not moderated, will eventually degrade sport?
strength is largely genetic, and will soon be manufactured by design, which will make sport uniteresting.
What is Tannsjo’s positive argument(s) for what’s wrong with gender/sex segregation in sport?
- anatomy= it’s problematic because its not clear how to categorize hermaphrodites. It’s also mysterious as to what makes genetalia relevant and too easy to change with surgery for cheaters
- gender= problematic because it’s elf identified and can be change over time - it’s not a fair way to segregate, too subjective
-
chromosomes= not everyone is XX (F) or XY (M)
-> argument 1 (against chomosome testing): if XX and XY categories, then there should be caategories for X and XXX, and XXY, etc. It’d be absurd and so aould having XX and XY categories
-> argument 2 (against chomosome testing): a persons genetic info should never be forced upon them, but genetic testing does that
