A heaven without giants or dwarfs--equality, gender and disabilities.

A few years ago Claudio Tamburrini and Torbjörn Tännsjö (not coincidentally, two men), published a paper in which they discussed gender equality in sports. Tamburini and Tännsjö complained that sport arenas are one of the few residual places where discrimination against women is openly accepted. They argued that the very existence of male sports and female sports, as two separate events, is an example of ignominious gender discrimination. If we believe in the value of equality, they continued, we should also believe that men and women should “compete against one another on equal terms on sport arenas.” 1 The reasons why females and males do not compete with each other relate to their different physiological and genetic setup (different strength, different proportion and distribution of muscle fi bers, 2 different hormones that regulate muscle growth, different skills, and so on 3 ). In order to correct this natural inequality, they suggested employing genetic engineering. We should enable women to “genetically modify their physique” and then allow them to participate in competitions with men. Science should be employed to correct natural “defi cits” and to restore equality. 4 At fi rst sight, to say that women should be allowed or even encouraged to genetically “enhance” their physique might appear as a defense of gender equality (the consequences of this leveling would be equalization of salaries, opportunities, fame, etc.). However, if equality and nondiscrimination were the real concern here, the argument might take another direction. One could suggest, for example, that in order to correct the “natural” inequalities between men and women, males be required to have much less training than women, or no training at all—or that men and women’s training be monitored in order for them to attain very similar levels of strength, endurance, and so on; that men be given drugs to make them weaker or less powerful; or that their genome be modifi ed in order for them to become more similar to women in the way that is relevant to restore equality. Equality, in other words, is compatible with both leveling up and leveling down. Underlying Tamburini and Tännsjö’s “proposal of equalization” is the assumption that being a man (at least in sports) is overall better than being a woman. The use of the word “enhancement” is indicative of their axiological premise.