中文導讀
10月9日，國際橄欖球理事會宣布將禁止跨性別女性參與女子橄欖球比賽。該組織做出此決定主要基於兩點依據：大部分男性都比女性更為強壯；此前採取的降低跨性別女性睪丸激素水平以降低他們的體能優勢的舉措效果不佳。這一決定保證了體育運動的公平性，其他運動或也需效法。
Letting trans women play in women’s sports is often unfair
ON OCTOBER 9th World Rugby, the global governing body for rugby union, announced that it would bar transgender women—people born male, but who identify as women—from playing in the international women’s game. The decision drew condemnation from some quarters and praise from others; England’s rugby authorities have already said they will carry on allowing trans women to play at all other levels of the game within England. It puts World Rugby at odds with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), whose rules allow trans women to compete in women’s Olympic events, and with several other sports that have followed the IOC’s guidance. Trans women competitors have enjoyed success in sports including weightlifting, cycling and athletics. Yet World Rugby’s decision to exclude them was the right one. Other sports should follow its lead.
The first thing they should note is how the decision was made. The debate over transgender rights, especially online, can be extremely bad-tempered and poisonous. World Rugby brought scientists, ethicists, athletes and lawyers together in person, to present calmer arguments directly to the sport’s administrators. Those presentations were made public, in the interests of transparency. And the decision relied, as far as possible, on the evidence.
They should also note what that evidence shows. It came in two strands. One confirmed what everyday experience suggests. Most males are bigger, faster and stronger than most females; some males are bigger, faster or stronger than any female. The second concerned the role of testosterone, the male sex hormone and anabolic steroid that is responsible for much of that sporting advantage. The IOC permits trans women to compete in women’s events only if they suppress the amount of testosterone circulating in their blood.
The evidence presented to World Rugby was not perfect, but it was enough to suggest strongly that this compromise does not work. Suppressing testosterone appears to have only a minor impact on strength—too small to undo the advantages bestowed by male puberty. And no amount of hormone therapy can shrink skeletons. That was enough for World Rugby to decide that the risk posed by trans women to other players in the women’s game would be too great. It has said it is ready to fund more research and will review its decision regularly. But in a risky sport already worried about the long-term impact of common injuries like concussion, its conclusion makes sense.
That evidence matters for non-contact sports, too, for it also concerns fairness. Women’s sport exists precisely to exclude males. That is true at both the elite level, where rewards are greatest, and at the recreational one, where the vast majority of sport is actually played. Without it, half the population would be left struggling against an insurmountable advantage granted by mere biological chance to the other half. If testosterone suppression cannot remove that advantage, then it is unjust for those who still possess it to compete against those who never did. (It is worth noting that this leaves room for trans men—those born female—to play in men’s sports if they wish, since they possess no biological advantage, and in contact sports are unlikely to pose a danger to their fellow competitors.)
Advocates for trans women often argue that inclusion should trump such worries. But sport is a zero-sum game, which means inclusion cuts both ways. If trans women possess a biological advantage, then allowing them to compete risks depriving others of victories they might otherwise have won, or a place in a team they might otherwise have earned. Most sports acknowledge that trade-off, at least in principle. The IOC itself notes that 「the overriding sporting objective is and remains the guarantee of fair competition.」 It is, in the end, simply a question of fact whether testosterone suppression can guarantee that fair competition in practice. And the evidence so far suggests it cannot.
——
Oct 17th 2020 • Leaders • 641 words
文章第一段第二句話「The decision drew condemnation from some quarters and praise from others"中的 quarters 作何解釋？
注意這裡的 quarter 為一熟詞僻義，表示「（尤指能提供幫助、信息或作出反應的）個人，群體」 ，英文釋義為 a person or group of people, especially as a source of help, information or a reaction, 看一個例句：The news was greeted with dismay in some quarters. 有一部分人對這條消息感到洩氣。(查看更多講解，歡迎加入《閱讀訓練營》，踏踏實實提升閱讀理解能力，詞彙量過八千，隨來隨學)
聲明：
本文全文摘選自The Economist/《經濟學人》(Oct 17th, 2020)，僅供個人學習交流使用。歡迎轉發至朋友圈。商業轉載請在正文前註明「本文來自新英文雜誌公眾號」。
©2020 新英文雜誌