society

@party05- the intermingling of sports causes some practical and social issues. The first distinction we have to make is that “sports” are a wide subject. On a professional level where most players represent the abnormal regardless of gender- that is to say that physically and/or genetically (leaving out mentality which is a separate matter) at or near the “pinnacle” human form for their sport/position. In such sports where less than a fraction of the population would ever be able to compete, saying that every woman who wants a chance to be a football (American) linebacker needs to weight 300lbs of solid muscle might work. The “average” woman would have no chance at it, but the “average man” also has no chance at that already. When we get down to “peewee” league sports- it also probably doesn’t matter much. These kids haven’t developed many sex differentiated traits and asides the overall “stakes” being lower and these leagues tending to push “sportsmanship” and “fun” over competition…

… it’s probably fine to mix such leagues. As we get to slightly older kids, it’s actually possible that in mixed leagues females might have some advantages depending (as an average whole,) since not only do females tend to enter puberty sooner than males, but there is often a period where females often are more developed in traits like height or strength compared to males. But this is still probably fine. As we enter puberty, the biological changes to the average male and female start to pose potential problems. Unlike our pro league example- these are still kids who just want to play a sport and likely want to win. While people can accomplish things and overcome the advantages of others, a realistic study of cooed athletics does tend to indicate that on the balance, we reach a point where females wanting to compete with males at a level like high school or college in many sports need to be in the top percentage of athletes for their gender to compete consistently with men who are…

.. more mediocre compared to athletes of their gender. In other words, in a hypothetical example not using real numbers, if if only the top 5-% of men or women wouid qualify for competitive same gender teams based on ability- if we mix those teams together, now only the top 1-2% of women are competitive against the 5-3% of men. Only the top .3% of women compete against the top 1-2% of men. Once we combine leagues this raises another issue- let’s say a school district had 100 male sports players and 100 female players on all their teams combined. So each league can support 100 players, 100 try out slots. Now, it doesn’t matter what percent of what gender makes the cut- we are dropping 100 kids who yesterday were in sports and today aren’t.

Unless we expand budgets and pack game schedules or extend seasons or make rules changes etc. to accommodate all the players. If we do that, there are many potential problems, but let’s ignore those. We started with 100 female and 100 male players. In this example all 200 “made the teams.” But over time do we keep a league with a 50/50, near 50/50, or even “demographically representative” mixture, or would one gender begin to dominate most or all those 200 slots? We’d probably need to go into the data and run some scales experiments to “try it out” in a controlled environment and observe to gain insight- but the gut and broad strokes data suggests that males would end up dominating in many sports.

Now culture steps in. In a world where trans people using the same bathroom as “our kids” causes panic and outrage (let’s ignore that not allowing trans people to use their bathroom of choice would hold the same or greater hypothetical “dangers” these people are worried about- so a “man in a dress” with a surgically created vagina is kept out of the womens room and now you’re less worried your daughter will be molested… but like… that means a “woman in a suit” with a surgically created penis is legally required to use the bathroom with your daughter. And why would one assume that a “man in a dress,” even if they had a penis still- was a pedophile to start? And let’s say one such person IS a pedophile… why we would assume little girls would be more at risk than little boys…? That doesn’t make a lot of sense- especially given the prevalence of non heterosexual preferences in the trans community….)

So the point there is that small brains don’t grow just because the world does. So now I can only imagine the sorts of moral panics and appeals to “tradition” and whatever nonsense might come about from intermixing sports. And well… given how often teenage rape cases involve athletes- sad to say I’d be more worried about my daughter on the team with some of these boys than in a bathroom with a trans person. Anyone who pays attention to statistics would. It goes deeper- but there are just huge social and institutional hurdles to overcome. Looking at the military and integration of females can give us some speculative insight into what we might expect, and one of those things is likely to be psychological warfare against females by their own superiors and team mates. Really, we could probably make sports much more balanced and potentially more entertaining by changing some fundamental rules if various sports to remove the advantages that one gender might hold. Changing scoring systems..

.. penalties etc. for example. But people tend to be against change and that is especially true in most sports. So personally, I just don’t see combining genders as a viable option across the board, at the very least it would likely require sweeping changes to all sorts of institutional thinking and rules to have a shot.

so essentially there are 1) cultural stigmas associated to the concept that would prevent the social acceptance of such practices, both in sports and elsewhere in society, for reasons that are not always without merit, and 2) even within the extremely limited norm amongst the athletic elites, there are enough differences, at least at the adult level, wherein it would create an unfair demographic in competitive sports (though my own kids being still very young and in integrated little league sports, i very much agree with you regarding the adolescent level, that it’s a non-issue).

which as i understand it creates a conflict of interests; on the one hand we want to be fair in competition so we divide the teams amongst those most demographically similar denominator, ie gender, with the understanding that while some are born with genetic advantages amongst them there is still enough similarity to where it is competitively fair, and on the other hand we want to make sure we are inclusive of all peoples, regardless of orientation or preference. and, it seems here that unfortunately we can’t always have both, because the acceptance of one practice contradicts the other (fairness in competition may exclude trans people on the ground of physically unfair advantage, but exclusion of them can be seemed as a violation of their rights and a failure of recognition of them as people)

and THAT’S a sticky issue, and one that is made further difficult by statistical evidence; in an article on the NZ NIH website (which i frustratingly can’t post here because of the site’s rules) they discuss the statistical difference and the problems it presents, and in a Business Insider article they discuss Lia Thomas’ success it was mentioned that she was 65th in mens swimming in the NCAA which jumped to around the top 5 in womens, which prompted a rule change mentioned in a Washington Times article where post-pubescent biological males can’t participate in womens swimming. (again, i would post links but i apparently CAN’T >:-( ).

which begs the question; is this rule change a violation of rights? how do we resolve this ? i don’t have any clear answer and i’m afraid that no one does.
edit: thank you for your honest open take. in my family trans rights is a hot-button topic and we can’t talk about it without someone going ballistic, at which post i usually try and leave the room before the shouting starts. it’s a nice change of pace to come to a place where opinions and honest questions can be shared without both sides thinking they’re so right that no ideas can really be shared. and yeah i get that no everyone on the site is so open, but it’s still a welcome change.

No worries. I appreciate your thoughts and the eloquence and time you put into them. I also understand completely about the rules making links difficult to post, so no worries on that. It’s late here, but if the day doesn’t get away from me, I think a little Google-fu will turn up the article if I get the chance and remember tomorrow. To points raised- yes, it’s very difficult. I don’t personally have an answer, just questions. I think that probably no one has a great answer that will make everyone or even most people, especially those with stakes in the game, happy. Discussing it in a level fashion I think is important though- tackling one question at a time. I think most people don’t know or get caught up and forget how to parse this sort of issue reasonably. What we have is a sort of negotiation- and in such negotiation, opposing sides of a table can spin their wheels all day on the things they don’t agree on. So where do we start? We must establish that which a consensus…

… CAN agree on. That’s where a lot of fighting starts on an issue like this, because even when faced with the hard truth, some won’t believe it or will find their own bare self humiliating, and fight to save face. What I mean is this- the first and fundamental question is simple: “can we agree that trans individuals are human?” If people agree on that, we can ask the next question: “can we agree on a fundamental concept that we would WANT to have an inclusive society?” That is- a focused question. No details. Not “if this” or “I don’t see how that is practical..” but “do you believe that these people are worthy of rights?”
If we approach the issue in agreement on those two terms, we can begin in good faith to work out the details. If a person can’t agree on those points- they can’t discuss the issue, simply put if they can’t agree on those terms they are a bigot, outed as one to themselves and others, and likely to get defense or wallow with pride in their filth.

So if we establish that trans individuals are human and deserving of rights, compassions, and a place in society; and we agree that in spirit we believe that sports should be open to humans, we then just need to ask “do you believe these humans and their rights are worth the inconvenience required to find and implement a solution that allows them a place at the table? Again- yes, we can move forward, no, this hypothetical person has plainly stated they consider another human being to be “less than” in terms of value to another, or that they equally hold human rights to have no value worthy of their attention. This is something very few people will take ownership of openly, or even acknowledge to themselves. Thusly many will begin such conversations defensively as the conversation becomes a fight for their self identity; or they get frustrated because they just can’t say the ONE thing their view REALLY hinges on, or know that in a discussion of logic or ideology such a stance will…

.. generally place them in a weak position, essentially an indefensible position. So if we can get past the wall of bigotry or dogma and have a discussion, we just keep finding those points people can agree on, broad at first, and then based on that, more specific. Such a discussion has to at least start with a fundamental agreement though- a goal both sides mutual agree on wanting to reach, and just need to agree on how to reach it best.
The “trans sports” debate touches on a BUNCH of sensitive subjects and traditions though. At the end of the day- sports are pretty stupid. Just honestly, objectively, the emphasis and resources and significance we tend to give sports is dumb. I’m not knocking sports fans- lots of things humans like are pointless or dumb. That’s fine. Or at least fine until it causes problems. So we have a problem in sports, and the question becomes what is more important: preserving sports as we know them, or providing the opportunity to play to everyone we can?

We can draw some historical inspirations.
Women’s sports haven’t always been a thing, and women have only been allowed in certain sports until fairly recently.
In America and other places there have historically been things like “Negro leagues,” where we put people who were “different.” Now, this is a touchy subject- but… about 75% of NBA players are black. About 70% of NFL players are black.
Now, this certainly indicates that either non black players just aren’t interested in professional careers in these sports, or there is some sort of advantage in making a pro team for these players.
So in 2022, can we imagine how thorny a discussion would be that hinged on:
“These guys need their own league. If we remove them from the statistics- other types of players jump significantly in the rankings…”
I want to be clear in saying I am NOT advocating any of what I said, or saying that black people are naturally more athletically gifted. I am aware of factors like lack of…

.. other opportunity to succeed in life or that the sports where we find the highest numbers of black athletes are those sports which those with limited access such as many black youth traditionally, could play. There are lots of other things and my point is I’m not perpetuating the myth of “black athletic superiority,” I’m just saying that if we approach trans people in sports, it is easy to write off their intelligence, diligence, or other traits in the same way and simply say that the numbers speak for themselves on how it is “unfair.” My point is that the “black athletic superiority” myth and many of the prejudices that blocked black competitors and shaped black involvement in sports can be applied to common views and perceived issues with trans sports.

That’s a major complication- separating what resistance is based in prejudice and what resistance is merely practical. Either can be perceived as or masquerade as the other. What is true and what we believe is true make no difference- right or wrong, what we know as true is true to us. So once it was true- true to perception and true to science even that certain groups were “inferior” in various ways. Wether trans athletes have an advantage or not- most people believe they do. With all the bias and misinformation surrounding trans people- there is a sensitivity inherent to this issue, because of the historical parallels to the fights of other marginalized groups to be able to participate in sports, being barred from the most lucrative leagues-

Navigating that sensitivity is part of the problem. The same that some people get triggered when forced to face their own bias, some people will be triggered on these issues because there is so much emotional baggage tied up in things. It’s like when someone has a terrible day and things keep going poorly and then some silly thing happens and they explode; or a spouse feels ignored at home and un noticed at work and then they try to get a waiters attention over and over and can’t- and they blow up because that’s the moment when all that baggage comes up. So issues like this one can be a sort of stress point where all the feelings of wrong from society get pulled in and the discussion isn’t about what it’s about, it’s about everything else. Get someone feeling that way in the same discussion as our person confronted by unpleasant self truth from earlier and it’s going totally off the rails.

So that takes us back to step one. Two people can’t discuss, or even really fight, about an issue if they are both talking about different things. So I think that’s the corner stone- getting lined up as a society so we are all talking about the same thing and all working for the same goal; and just needing to work out the details. That’s still a huge conversation- but with our initial 3 questions agreed upon as a “yes,” it makes it much easier and more productive to work through the rest.

That’s a Pandora’s box though right? Transitioning is a touchy subject. Adults can make decisions they later regret on the subject. Kids are… kids. It’s a sticky subject how to be certain a child is committed to such a change and knows what they are getting into, understands. It also raises potentials for all sorts of abuse and exploitation. Many parents of child actors or models or pageant contestants or sports players already push their children against their wills and in unhealthy ways to achieve the parents dreams or make money for the parents. So certainly it could raise potentials for abuse and exploitation to open the doors to allowing parents to give children legal hormone therapy. Such therapy COULD be used to essentially disguise training programs involving pharmaceutical manipulation of a child’s body to create a future star athlete at a specific sport.

It gets complex fast. More so when we consider all the possible ways that we can modify or influence genetics or chemicals or biology l- and how those are changing and improving.
So is this someone being banned for speaking their mind? I guess it depends. If you think Joe shouldn’t be allowed to play on the high school team because he tries to sell drugs to the team- that’s not “hate based.”
If you think Joe shouldn’t be allowed to play because he’s gay- that’s kinda based on who Joe is. Something Joe can’t change.

It’s a sticky subject, trans identity and how to be inclusive in a society not built around the concept of having trans people as part of it. The moral of the story I see is really less that we can’t express our opinions but more that we need to be thoughtful in expressing our opinions. Thoughtful of others and their view points for example. If you feel like trans athletes shouldn’t be able to compete in a certain league, that’s an opinion and there are ways of expressing that without being disrespectful or hateful.
As I outline above- it doesn’t even really come down to “gender” does it? The average American man would likely lose a game of basketball against a WNBA star wouldn’t he? So we can’t say it’s “unfair” to allow men to compete against women in athletics can we? What does that mean? I don’t know. Intuitively most people would just say it isn’t fair to have “biological males” compete against “biological females,” if we explore the details though- that doesn’t really…

… give the total picture. A simple way to handle it would be to just ban any athlete that does a significantly better job at the sport than any other or the average. Of course that would probably hurt athletics on the whole, and athletes could simply “sandbag” by not playing to their full abilities all the time but holding back for “when it matters” etc. so this still maybe isn’t fair. The tempting thing to do is to try and ban trans athletes or advocate for trans only leagues. It’s simple and doesn’t require us to think or change anything. It doesn’t really directly harm anyone except the trans- which many people don’t care if they harm them anyway right? And that’s sort of the danger. Trans people are a minority of the population. Trans people are marginalized historically and in the present- In society, in law. Trans people who have a dream of living life as the gender they identify as can’t achieve that dream period if we tell them that no matter what they do they’ll always be…

.. “something else.” As an American problem- that’s a big problem. For a country which prides itself on offering the opportunity to anyone to achieve their dreams through hard work- philosophically it fits that narrative better to tell the girl who got her “place stollen” to “get good,” to work hard enough to make it next time. Did others non trans women make the finals? If 5 women or whatever are chosen from a league or school or team or whatever- 4 aren’t trans, 1 is trans- did the trans woman “steal your spot,” or were you not good enough to make the finals with the other women who made it? Saying to a trans person: “you can NEVER achieve this dream because you are trans..” that’s final. NEVER. No amount of hard work, dedication, nothing they do will ever allow them to make it.

By American values that is a problem I mean- 99.9% of us can work as hard as we want our entire lives and if you dream of being a billionaire or flying a space shuttle- you won’t. Realistically, most peoples odds, and especially some people born or coming through disadvantaged positions just can’t do certain things even if it’s theoretically possible. BUT- it isn’t because we are telling them they can’t. No law or rules says that being a pansexual satanist amateur cam performer born to 7th generation welfare and addicted to heroine bans you from being president. There is basically NO chance you’d ever be president- but you theoretically COULD if you worked hard and smart towards the goal. Saying to a trans kid- you CANT do that… that’s not really an American value.

So what do people recommend? A trans league? Let’s ignore the fact that realistically wouldn't happen and if it did it would likely be treated as an after, after thought. I mean- in most segments pro woman’s sports faced these issues. So let’s ignore that. Let’s ignore that there are fundamental issues with telling a person that identifies as a man or a woman “but you aren’t though…” If we ignore all that- what then? Any school that offers a sport is going to have to offer it for trans kids too? So every school needs to add the staff and equipment and everything else that the other teams get/ for trans kids. What do we do if there aren’t enough trans kids to form a team? Tell them too bad, sucks to be a minority? It gets complex man.

@guest_ lol you actually believe all the bs you just said?

I believe that it’s a complex topic with many points and perspectives to consider. Do I personally see things from all the perspectives I listed? No.
I do 100% believe that American values are at their ideal- to provide the opportunity for people to achieve a goal through hard work and dedication. So I do believe that just stating outright that trans individuals can’t compete in sports goes against those values. As I say above though- it’s complicated and it’s a slippery slope on where we choose to draw what exact lines when we are trying to be inclusive and understanding.
I believe that I don’t know the “right answer” and that every proposal I’ve heard or thought of to this point to try and address the issue of trans athletes has serious flaws.

As for the issue of the OP- I believe that while she was likely emotional over something she saw as unfair and missing out on an event she worked hard towards- if other “biological females” were selected for finals along with a trans female athlete- those other girls were good enough, and if OP was good enough to beat one of those girls, she would be selected. When 5 people beat you by their performance that inherently isn’t theft- it’s called merit.

Now, I don’t have enough information to judge this young lady or her situation. This is speculation of if this, than this. She’s upset regardless, but I do believe that her phrasing and approach to the situation aren’t appropriate. I believe- and it is a fact, as a stated- men don’t always beat women. I’d personally lose a basketball game to a WNBA player and suspect most men reading this would. So just the same as we can’t judge her- does she have enough information to judge the young woman that “stole” her spot? In theory a trans female may have advantages in bone density or upper body muscle mass etc. but… if we did I depth study of both players, tested their actual bone density, circulatory system, blood oxygen, muscle mass etc. would THIS trans girl have advantage? Would she fall outside a maximum theoretical range for a “natural woman?”

Belief is less what my statements are about. They are mostly questions. Points to consider. What is the difference? In all likelihood, a dominant female competitor, someone like the Williams sisters in tennis- they most likely are on the more extreme end of the spectrum for physical and genetic traits for a female. Their dedication, skill, and training can’t be ignored, but millions or more women could have the same or stronger drive and training and not achieve their level of performance achievement or potential. So, if we have a spectrum from “weakest” performance metrics for a gender and “strongest,” if a trans competitor falls within the “natural” range for that gender- what “unfair advantage” do they have compared to a Williams sister vs. a “natural” woman who doesn’t fall on that far end of the spectrum?

I'll be honest man... this ain't as complex as you making it... it's as simple as 2+2... I hate doing this but I'll explain... you said Michael Jordan was on his own league.. but that is when compared to other man... now imagine if he had a sex change and went to WNBA.... you think that would be fair for the woman in WNBA?.... the opposite team would get fuckin massacred... these woman work their ass offf their whole life for these couple of minutes and then a trans who was a guy before wins cause of well HIM BEING A GUY AND HAVING AN OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE, and then you who can't do shit saying that world isn't fair the woman who lost should just suck it up.... bruh bruh do you hear yourself?... if a turtle is exceptionally fast among other turtles it's fair to still complete cause guess what... ITS ABOUT THE TURTLES... but if you bring a fuckin cheeetah and say damn this cheetah is exceptionally fast among the turtles it don't work like that bruh....

I have to challenge your logic in- basically every place.
1. Turtles and Cheetahs are different SPECIES. If we were talking about allowing cheetahs to compete in the Olympic 100 meters vs. humans I would 100% concede your point.
2. Perhaps I worded it poorly and it is my fault you don’t seem to comprehend what I was saying. Sorry for that, if that is the case. If we assign a theoretical number to sum up human performance- and let’s say for a given sport any healthy and able bodied man on earth will be in a range of 50-100, and any like woman will fall between 30-80; if we have a trans athlete who ranks as a 70 or an 80- that is within the range of a woman isn’t it? It only becomes unfair if their potential exceeds the biological threshold for a woman. The fact a man or a “former biological male” MAY have an advantage doesn’t mean that any specific trans athlete has an advantage over a specific female athlete.
3. Do you believe that if you personally transitioned to female…

.. tomorrow, and you got Venus Williams to agree to play you a game of tennis, that you’d win because you’re a man? See #2 about “range of performance.”
4. The distinction is arbitrary. “It’s about turtles..” well… it’s about whatever we say it’s about. I mean like… I don’t want to insult your religious beliefs or whatever if you think sports were penned by some deity and the rules and leagues handed to man through revelation- but the facts support that humans make the rules in sports. We define the game and we define what the game is about. So it is about whatever we say it is about. It’s about whatever we find most interesting or entertaining or noble.
5. If you find a turtle that can run as fast as a cheetah- or a cheetah that runs the speed of a turtle- what’s unfair about them racing…?

If a man and a woman trains for the same amount of time with the same methods the man will have a pretty big and considerable edge because of how the biology works and that proved scientifically.....the person in question here...who won the swimming championship had only started taking hormone suppressing meds since one year....that isn't at all enough to put that person in the theoretical woman's range(and you cannot really just rate them that way...) I am not religious and i believe that humans decide the rules of the game but it should always be just fair playing field....why do you think steroids are banned in Olympics...even if i take steroids and fight against a professional boxer I'll loose....so do you think steroids should be level in Olympics as well??...

If a woman and a man train the same amount of time with the same methods, we can’t say the man will have a pretty big advantage. The man MIGHT, it depends. If it were that simple, if we could say “do this training for this long and you’ll succeed…” anyone could be a star athlete if they just put in the time right? But we have legendary stars for basically every sport who surpass most other players- American Football star Tom Brady is not just a legend- he’s still active at 44 years old. Could you or I do that by just following his training? If all it takes is training, with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, why aren’t other players doing his training to get his numbers and stay in the game and desirable at 44? Training at anything doesn’t guarantee mastery, you can play a sport, draw, dance, write, sing, drive, etc. your entire life starting as a child and never be good enough to make it in the field.

As for the second question about steroids- from a practical standpoint- there are already steroids and lots of drugs, banned drugs, drugs that aren’t banned, drugs that are restricted for medical use but abused for performance, drugs that aren’t known so aren’t classified etc. that get used in olympics and professional sports. It doesn’t take a genius to realize in many cases where drugs are being used. We know that while there is variance in physiology, outliers to the scope- some things the human body just can’t do naturally. The last century, prominently baseball- was marked with PES scandal- to the shock of a public who saw nothing odd about a crop baseball players putting on solid muscle into their 30’s and looking more like football players suddenly coming up or transforming with bloated heads and other obvious give away- smashing records and pushing the bar beyond what any human in history had done. The Olympics has had more than its fair share of PED use or accusations…

.. and likely there are many more cases we are unaware of. So there’s already mass doping in sports. Anyone who thinks that an entertainment industry with billions of dollars in commerce tied to it is “fair” is sweetly naive. Everything down to the city chosen for the Olympics is wrapped up in politics and money and power games. As to wether I’m opposed to open PES use in pro sports… well… I’m not going to say I’m all for it- there are complications- but overall- why not?

If you want the game to be as fair as possible- PES use seems the best way to do that right? Without mixing sexed etc yet- let’s look at mens sports. Some people or many or most may be secretly using PES- they risk lots of trouble but the rewards outweigh the risks to some, and for some, they can’t even compete without doping, they’d not even be in the sport. So that makes it unfair for anyone not doping. What’s more, someone with generic advantages like higher natural testosterone, muscle mass etc, they have an advantage already, and those at the lowest end of the spectrum on those things- let’s call them men who more closely have these traits to what a woman might, can’t even hope to play certain sports competitively. If everyone is allowed to dope and we are drawing blood work and hormone panels and other tests to ensure that people are doping to a certain standard of performance- we equalize many of the unfair advantages in sports.

We also mitigate it even eliminate the controversy around trans athletes. If you’ve got a female athlete pushing a stack of steroids and insulin (already abused in many sports..) and other drugs- we start to lose advantages to bone density and muscle mass and red cell counts etc. If they can openly dope, more players can theoretically stay competitive into their 40’s like Tom Brady by replacing test and other hormones which natural deficiencies from aging tend to contribute to falling athletic performance as they age.
What’s more, if we look at the Olympics or pro sports as the “pinnacle” of human athleticism- why would we ban doping if it increases athleticism? “It’s not natural performance!” Well.. that’s a weird hill to die on. We allow pain killers and all sorts of drugs as suits our whims. There are athletes like football players and such who can barely function if they aren’t medicated to the gills.

We train athletes in all manner of pressure chambers and air mixes and allow them to get bizarre transfusions and all sorts of things to improve performance or recovery. We use technology in training and diet and all over these sports to try and gain any advantage. It’s a bit arbitrary where we want to draw the line on what is “natural.” It isn’t “natural” to practice soccer all day. No one does that. If we didn’t have professional sports, no one, no task on earth would require a person to practice soccer specific or hockey specific or football specific skills beyond basic movement. It’s not like we have sports for who can mine out a tunnel fastest or some skill that any number of people might actually use for some practical purpose or survival need. It’s all artificial. Arbitrary.

In that sense- I don’t see a problem as far as “fairness” or “integrity” in allowing doping in sports. If we allowed cybernetics etc we’d probably see the development of prosthetics leap ahead in years what currently is decades or centuries once teams started pouring money in to try and get the advantage. If we allow doping we’d probably see the development and refinement of all sorts of hormone therapies and compounds and regiments that become safer, more effective, and have less side effects.
The sport wouldn’t likely suffer, as we saw from the baseball scandals- people want to see players knocking out insane plays. It makes the game exciting. As the technology of cybernetics and drugs advanced, we’d get crazier and crazier seasons to keep things fresh. Watch a guy kick a football over the freaking moon or score a basket from the parking lot. People would pay to see that.

I don’t have an inherent problem with the ethics. Some would say that open doping would force out players that don’t want to dope- well, as people often say about trans athletes… if the natural athletes are forced out, why don’t they create a “natural league.” Of course that’s a pain in the butt that’s likely to fail, and just like trans of woman’s leagues we know on the whole that most people aren’t going to watch those games. Why would most people want to watch natural athletes play at a lower level of performance when you can watch doped upped cybernetic titans jump over the grand canyon? So if you don’t want to dope, join an “all natural league” or some teams could choose not to dope and see how that goes.
I don’t think an argument about forcing potential health risks on athletes through doping is valid. Most sports already do that. They take, usually young kids who you can tell but won’t understand until they get there, and they break them for life. Leave them with pain…

Physical disability, brain trauma, etc. being at the peak of athletic performance isn’t the same as being at the peak of health. There’s nothing healthy about the training and stress placed on a human body to achieve the level of performance required for many pro sports. Much of it is in fact unhealthy despite the cut physiques and endurance and muscled bodies. So to arguments of player welfare, I largely say: “meh.” It isn’t really my business what a person chooses to do with their body, and sports already tend to destroy the body of athletes, so self destruction via one method is as good as any other.
My biggest qualm about open doping in sports is that due to numerous socioeconomic factors, it would likely have a disproportionate impact on certain demographics who for many, ports have been the only open path to financial success.