On Loland’s conception of fair equality of opportunity in sport

[...]Loland argues that as a high testosterone level is: (A) a stable inequality, (B) inborn or natural and (C) a strong and systemic driver of performance. [...]Loland recognises that there are ways in which the tension between fairness and inclusion could be resolved, such as using algorithms that account for a multiplicity of relevant inequalities (ie, inequalities that are stable, inborn and exert a significant and systemic impact).1 These algorithms could lead to a more fine-grained classification, that is, we could have more than two categories. Changes in core rules, such as classification systems, are met with much resistance.1 While we agree that change does not come easily in sport, this is not a reason to abandon more fine-grained classification. [...]as Loland points out, classification in sport occurs in many other formats, such as age, sex, body size and ability/disability.1 Given that we already have such fine-grained classification, we are in favour of extending this to inequalities such as testosterone levels.