It matters because people are interested in who is the best. People understand that the best man will likely be athletically better than the best woman. True. And they can go compete with other men of their caliber in the rec leagues with any women who choose to join. But what people want to see is the best and most committed people playing against one another. To do that you have to pit the best men vs the best men. And the best women vs the best women. Anything else and you just cheapen the women's competition and make anybody who violates that look bad.
I am old, but identify as young. Which makes me a trans-juvenile.. I am too old to understand all of this gender surfing. I believe we are all equal, but, each has our own individual talents and interests. Best analogy I can come with is. About 90% of the people are right handed, 10% left. All are equal. Just some are different. Well almost all are equal. I do believe a small % are better and have an advantage. The lucky few that are ambidextrous. Now I am more confused than ever about this trans topic.
My girls play against boys all the time. I understand that very well. A girl choosing to play up is completely different than girls being forced to compete against somebody who is playing down. My daughters refuse to play in the lower brackets even though they'd dominate because that would be distasteful.
No, you don't have to do that. You don't HAVE to separate by gender, that's just the way it's been done in the past. Where you draw the lines is a decision. You can have ability groupings. You can segregate by age, weight, height, education, whatever you want. You can have white people compete against other white people to see who is the best white person. I'm proposing there not be a women's competition. There doesn't have to be. barfo
First, that's far more complicated than dividing by sex at birth. 2nd, it's not nearly as fun to watch most sports split like that. And if you separate it by those metrics men will win all of those divisions. So you'll wind up with fewer and fewer women playing sports. Which will be a huge negative for women, and by extension, society. Advocating that we eliminate women's sports is an absolutely terrible and regressive idea.
Well, it's true that AAA baseball gets fewer fans than MLB. But it's also true that the WNBA gets fewer fans than the NBA. I don't see a big difference there. I don't really see why that would be. Not every man is physically superior to all women. Do it right, and women would win about half the time, assuming the non-elite leagues had a 50/50 participation ratio. I'm not sure that's a given, but I agree it is one possible outcome. The opposite is also a possible outcome. barfo
That wouldn't happen. There aren't enough available spots in each sport at the high school level (which is what we're talking about here) too get far enough down the participant list to reach the 50/50 ability split along gender lines. Under your proposal, it's likely >80% of high school athletes would be male (it was 93% before 1972). This is why Title IX exists.
It takes a pretty determined sexism to think a high school boy could have defeated Serena Williams. On planet Earth. Dwyane Wade and his 17 year old daughter Zara are creating a new web site as safe place for LGBTQ youth, to post their stories, chat, share poetry, photography, etc.
Serena Williams might be the exception. In most sports and in most cases and in almost every team sport the best HS boys team would beat the best women's team in the world. And that's fine. Again, I have 3 daughters who train with boys. They beat boys all the time. It can certainly happen. Be we need to be realistic. That's not sexist. Are you supporting the idea of getting rid of women's sports? Do you think if there were no women's sports anybody would even know who Serena Williams is? How many wins do you think she'd have? Is this the attention we want for women's sports? https://abc3340.com/news/nation-wor...-riley-gaines-justin-trudeau-april-hutchinson
Well, I guess that makes sense. We need to tell a lot of kids that they just aren't good enough to play. I guess sports does teach some useful life lessons after all. barfo
Or, you know... Just let girls compete against girls. There is nothing preventing them from playing up against boys if they want to. You gain nothing by eliminating women's sports and cause a ton of harm.
I am absolutely not in favor of eliminating women's sports. Just denying that high school boys could beat best women. I referenced Selena because it's easier to compare individual than team sports. Fewer variables. Do high school boys swim better than Katie Ladecky? Run faster than Sha'Carrie Richardson?
Sha'Carrie Richardsons 100 meter time of 10.65 wouldn't rank her in the top 3000 all time of US HS boys. Outside the top 10,000 HS boys times world wide. She would be outside the top 300 boys times in the US this year. And Katie Ledeckys best time of 26.64 is slower than the HS boys record of 19.11 in the 50m freestyle by 7 seconds. It's just different. Men and women are built different.
My daughter 25 years ago was a Pole Vaulter at Western Oregon, she was ranked nationally and won several high profile invitationals. She also played women's softball. She favors women's leagues and doesn't think trans participants are that big a deal if they are following State policy. My 5th grade granddaughter plays on traveling softball team and they are made top of skilled players from different districts, they could beat one of my grandsons 5th grade rec teams as they are much like the bad new bears. Me personally I agree with designated sex at birth as a way to protect girls and women's sport in the long haul.
I went through boy&explorer scouts, and would have loved campouts with girls. I just dont think most girls would want to couple with boys. I dont care if there are separate organization for boys girls , women or men.
