Level the playing field
Re: "Trans women banned from female athletics," (BP, March 24).
There is a much better solution to this contentious sporting issue borne of improving technology and respect for individuals.
World Athletics has squandered that opportunity. Instead of perpetuating the ancient obsession with biological sex, the focus could instead have been put on relevant physical criteria, such as the cited testosterone levels, and allow athletes to compete in categories according to which set of those physical criteria they met, irrespective of genetic sex.
How could that be unfair to anyone competing in such a category?
This solution to it would have defused the controversy without perpetuating inherited notions that focus on judging women differently to men merely because they are biologically women.
In what other area of human contest is such sex-based discrimination still an accepted norm?
Are women managers kept carefully sequestered from male managers, or do both compete in the corporate field on the same set of relevant criteria, with their sex being irrelevant?
In the case of athletics, those criteria would include things like testosterone level, height, weight, lung capacity, and so on. Why, after all, should weaker women be forced to compete against stronger women merely because they happen to be in the category of biological female?
When other playing fields are moving past it, why does sport remain determined to discriminate on the basis of sex?
Why the refusal to treat individuals impartially according to relevant criteria for ability?
Man vs AI
Re: "Education malaise," (PostBag, March 10).
While Kuldeep Nagi may be correct in his assertion that new technologies such as AI or ChatGPT do have their benefits in the classroom, he still admits that well-trained instructors are needed.
And, given that both technologies have only really been in existence for public use for only a few months, it begs the question as to whether its possible to have trained instructors in just a few months?
Further, are we to just get rid of conventional teachers just because they can't effectively use those platforms yet?
It might also be pointed out that there are a whole host of other problems which have yet to be resolved with these technologies.
For instance, in an unpublished letter to the Post, I wrote that New York's biggest school board has now banned the use of ChatGPT on all school sites and devices, and that other school boards are sure to follow suit.
The reason given was that this system can easily write an essay for someone on most topics, but the essays don't always make sense.
Furthermore, I said this technology is already wreaking havoc at the post-secondary level, as, according to Globe and Mail reporter Joe Friesen (in a Jan 30th article, "ChatGPT prompting some professors to rethink how they grade students"), Canadian university professors are now reluctant to assign essays due to the presence of ChatGPT, relying more on using common tests when evaluating students.
Such problems have occurred after only a few of months of the platform being available in the public domain!
So one shudders to think what will happen after a couple of years.
Sign of the times
Re: "Happiness Index," (BP, March 23).
Many thanks to the Bangkok Post for featuring Gen Prayut on the front page nearly every day for the past few weeks.
He is owed a big debt of gratitude for preserving rule by "good people" when democratic elections threatened their interests.
Perhaps in recognition of their indebtedness to him, the "good people" should amend the constitution to allow Gen Prayut to serve as prime minister for life.
Anti-pollution laws matter
Re: "Storm clouds brewing, PM2.5 worsens," (BP, March 10).
PM Prayut is reported to have said: "We don't want to use the law [on farmers burning crops] because people will be in trouble. We don't want that."
Well, crop burning caused the rise in PM2.5 dust level. Sir, by not enforcing a law that will reduce the harm to people's health you could be accused of dereliction of duty. Isn't it ironic that the PM is strenuously prosecuting Thai youth for expressing opinions that harm no one.
In the commentary "Next poll brings old guard new priorities," published on Saturday, the pull quote should have read: "It is an open secret that he (Gen Prawit) is ready for a marriage of convenience with Pheu Thai."
CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
Fax: +02 6164000 email: email@example.com
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
All letter writers must provide a full name and address. All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretionSEND