| First off, I'd like to mention that I don't think that sounds very unreasonable, so I'm not responding out of feeling offended. I am taking that as being a fairly reasonable position. I just currently think it is probably at least incomplete. Now on to the actual response: What would be your view of a tournament which only allows people to enter if they have a different <x> than the majority of the winners of the "main" tournament during the last 5 years? (Example: If <x> is gender, then if 3 men had won the "main tournament" in the last 5 years, then only people who are not men could enter the alternate tournament, and if 3 women had won the "main tournament" in the last 5 years, only people who are not women could enter the alternate tournament. (If there was no most common <x> then the alternate tournament would not be run, because there would not be any eligible participants. For example if one year, the two semifinalists refuse to continue.) Would you say that there should also be another alternative tournament in which participants are only eligible if they have the same <x> as the majority of winners of the "main tournament" over the last 5 years? I agree that there is not /inherently/ a problem if one gender (or other quality) is more common in an activity, and that the problems are in the causes or effects of such a situation. But I am not certain that trying to apply pressure to make the ratio closer to equal can't be a good way to address whatever problem might be causing , or caused by, the ratio to be unequal. I'm not certain that doing that when there aren't problems related to the inequality in outcome causes any harm. If someone decides they want to give money to left handed, or to right handed, people, what harm does that cause? |