Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:04 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Sure, I know that but are they less resilient to injury from a ball struck by a boy than a boy would be? I can't think why they would be and if they aren't then the risk of injury in a mixed sport is not worse than in boys v boys game.
They are definitely at more risk physiologically.

“Women are more prone to injuring joints such as the shoulders and knees. Weaker shoulder muscles and looser supporting tissues mean the joint is less stable than in men, reports writer Michael Lasalandra, in an interview with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center sports medicine physician Bridget Quinn. Also, the injury rate to the anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL, a major knee ligament, is significantly higher in female than in male athletes. By proper training and strengthening of supporting muscles, women can prevent such injuries.”

Source: https://www.livestrong.com/article/3...een-men-women/

“Male athletes have longer and larger bones, which provide a clear mechanical advantage over female athletes. The increased articular surface and larger structure of male bones provide them with a greater leverage and a wider frame on which to support muscle. Similarly, the ligaments of female athletes are generally more lax and fragile than those of their male counterparts. This gives male athletes an advantage in sports that involve throwing, kicking and hitting, and explains the higher incidence of musculoskeletal injuries among female athletes. On the other hand, female athletes have a wider pelvis and a lower center of gravity, which provides excellent balance.”

Source: https://work.chron.com/physiological...tes-20627.html

This article from Duke University shows the overwhelming performance gap between men and women and makes a very strong argument why it’s necessary to have separate athletic competition for the sexes:
https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-spor...c-performance/
  #52  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:07 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
cmosdes, I'm one of those guys who have those genetic disadvantages you mention. There are a lot of women who are physically stronger than me. But one obvious practical problem with a league just for guys like me is, how do you identify us? If you have any sort of competitive tryouts, then the teams will be full of the guys who have genetic disadvantages, but who practiced and worked out harder, or who had other genetic advantages that compensate for the disadvantages, or whatever. And how do you tell the difference between one of those guys and the guys at the lower end of those who don't have such disadvantages?

With sex, it's easy, because there are a whole lot of easily-detectable traits that go along with the traits that disadvantage women in sports (at least, usually, and those cases where the correlations aren't perfect do indeed cause headaches for things like sex-segregated sports). If you have a vagina, it's generally assumed that you also have a package of genes that make you physically weaker. But there's no obvious marker that I have the genes I do. You'd have to isolate the specific genes and run DNA tests, and even then, there'd be other genes with similar effects that you'd be missing.
See post #44.
  #53  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:01 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
cmosdes, I'm one of those guys who have those genetic disadvantages you mention. There are a lot of women who are physically stronger than me. But one obvious practical problem with a league just for guys like me is, how do you identify us? If you have any sort of competitive tryouts, then the teams will be full of the guys who have genetic disadvantages, but who practiced and worked out harder, or who had other genetic advantages that compensate for the disadvantages, or whatever. And how do you tell the difference between one of those guys and the guys at the lower end of those who don't have such disadvantages?

With sex, it's easy, because there are a whole lot of easily-detectable traits that go along with the traits that disadvantage women in sports (at least, usually, and those cases where the correlations aren't perfect do indeed cause headaches for things like sex-segregated sports). If you have a vagina, it's generally assumed that you also have a package of genes that make you physically weaker. But there's no obvious marker that I have the genes I do. You'd have to isolate the specific genes and run DNA tests, and even then, there'd be other genes with similar effects that you'd be missing.
I'm not really bothered if people don't get access to sportsball because of genetics. That is the reality most of us face, boys and girls.

Access to sportsball for all who want it is the right thing to do but impossible. So we do the next best thing and divide access along clear demarcations, as you indicated. That's fair and fine. But to ignore the fact we are still denying access to sportsball for equally disadvantaged peopled is disingenuous.

Everyone seems okay denying access to sportsball for the majority of boys, but if we deny that access to girls it all of a sudden becomes vitally important to have access. That is the part I'm railing against.
  #54  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:09 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
The meets are still scored separately as boys vs. boys/girls vs. girls. There are occasionally invitational meets where the points are added together for a mixed team championship but the actual competition is still gender divided.
Yes, they are; my point was, if they wanted to "combine" them, they could do it without any hassle. Also note that, in all of the sports I mentioned, it would always be "boys against boys, and girls against girls."

One reason this will almost certainly never happen; it disqualifies all single-sex schools that can't find a "partner" school where all of its students are the opposite sex from competing. For example, one of the top football high schools in the country, De La Salle of Concord, CA, is boys-only; however, literally "right next door" is all-girls Cardonelet High School.
  #55  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:11 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
But to ignore the fact we are still denying access to sportsball for equally disadvantaged peopled is disingenuous.
I believe this statement is false and I would appreciate if you could provide some concrete examples of it. I'm not understanding your position.

Many sports have both varsity and jv levels. Some sports will have multiple jv levels to enable less talented people to play. How is a genetically disadvantaged person denied access to sports? Just because they can't be on the varsity team doesn't mean they can't play sports or have a competitive experience.

And many sports have positions which don't require a significant amount of genetic luck. Take the setter in volleyball as an example. The setter is all about finesse to get the ball to the power strikers. A setter doesn't have to be particularly strong or fast. Being a defender in soccer is another example. Someone doesn't have to be super fast to be a good defender. They can use strategy to prevent shots taken on goal. So you don't have to have super strength or super speed to play at the varsity level if that's what you want.

Or the person could join a less popular or no-cut sport. Sports like diving often don't have many people on the team and would have slots for just about anyone. Sports like cross country are setup to be no-cut and everyone who wants to is allowed to join.
  #56  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:56 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
I believe this statement is false and I would appreciate if you could provide some concrete examples of it. I'm not understanding your position.

Many sports have both varsity and jv levels. Some sports will have multiple jv levels to enable less talented people to play. How is a genetically disadvantaged person denied access to sports? Just because they can't be on the varsity team doesn't mean they can't play sports or have a competitive experience.

And many sports have positions which don't require a significant amount of genetic luck. Take the setter in volleyball as an example. The setter is all about finesse to get the ball to the power strikers. A setter doesn't have to be particularly strong or fast. Being a defender in soccer is another example. Someone doesn't have to be super fast to be a good defender. They can use strategy to prevent shots taken on goal. So you don't have to have super strength or super speed to play at the varsity level if that's what you want.

Or the person could join a less popular or no-cut sport. Sports like diving often don't have many people on the team and would have slots for just about anyone. Sports like cross country are setup to be no-cut and everyone who wants to is allowed to join.
Why do we need separate leagues for girls if all that is true? Why not have the girls just do what you are advocating the lower skilled boys do?

What does it mean to you to have someone participate in sportsball? To me, it is getting to have more than a pittance of play time in an actual competition. By junior or senior year of high school there are very few of those positions available. By college they are even rarer. While some of what you say is true, that no cut positions and lower skill positions are available, usually by the time kids are in their 3rd year of high school even those are gone.

Also, much of this depends on what level of sportsball you want to discuss. Title IX is collegiate level. Are you saying there are jv football teams and no-cut cross country teams in collegiate sports at most universities? That would be news to me. Even at the high school level, there aren't an unlimited number of spots available. By the second half of high school even those are generally only going to be for freshman or sophomores. If you can't make varsity by your junior year people are often encouraged to go find something else to do. And then what? A junior who trained the majority of their time in soccer is supposed to go show up and try to make the varsity volleyball team as a setter or take up diving? Right.

At the high school level and beyond, the concept of equal play time is gone. So now you need to define what participating means when you have people who technically made the team but ride the bench the entire season. My son's junior year in high school he played about 20 minutes the entire season in soccer. He was cut his senior year. He was on the team his junior year, sure, but all that meant was that he got to practice with the team and then sit on the bench while everyone else played. Is that really participating? Because if it is, we can solve this really, really easily. Let the teams have as many people as they want on the team and then only play the top X number of them. There, problem solved. Now the girls can be on the boys' team. If that isn't participating, we are back to my original statement, which is that participating is not available to those with genetic disadvantages, boys or girls.
  #57  
Old 07-12-2019, 06:50 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,562
Youth hockey is coed until about age 14 when the girls seperate.

Thing is girls can "play down" one year. Meaning a 14 year old girl can play on an under 13 team. That tends to make them sometimes the best player on the team until about age 14 when the boys are equal or better and the girls switch to all girls teams.

Same as in little league baseball. Many girls play at the younger levels but stop about 6th grade and switch to all girls softball.
  #58  
Old 07-12-2019, 07:37 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
Being a defender in soccer is another example. Someone doesn't have to be super fast to be a good defender. They can use strategy to prevent shots taken on goal. So you don't have to have super strength or super speed to play at the varsity level if that's what you want.
I spend a lot of time in soccer and this is patently false. A defender does a lot more than just "use strategy to prevent shots taken on goal." Way more. Let alone the notion someone without significant soccer experience can pick up the strategy within a few weeks. Someone that has spent the previous 10 years playing football and suddenly finds themselves outweighed by 50lbs and shorter by 6" to everyone else around them will NOT be able to just walk over to the soccer pitch and say, "Okay, I'll just be a varsity player here." I can only assume the same is true for a setter in volleyball. There isn't any high school sport I know of that the "genetically disadvantaged" can just walk on and get significant participation at the varsity level. And, as I said, if you aren't varsity worthy by junior year you likely aren't going to have a spot on the jv team.
  #59  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:25 PM
AlphaOmegaMan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 27
With transgender women and girls competing, can we still point to genetic differences? What is the genetic difference between a transgender girl/woman and a cisgender boy/man?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.out...discrimination
  #60  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:28 PM
AlphaOmegaMan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 27
And what about the intersexed?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...caster-semenya
  #61  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:38 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,461
cmosdes, I still don't see how you think allowing boys to play on girls teams would solve all those problems you mention. Aren't all those things issues at an all boys school with all boys teams? Some boys won't make varsity. Some boys will have to play at a lower level. Some boys will sit on the bench for significant parts of the game. Some boys eventually will not make the team at any level. Some boys will have to learn a new sport and start at the bottom. All that happens at a boys schools. So what would letting boys be on the girls team solve?

And keep in mind that the reason many of those girls teams are there in the first place is the parents supported them being created so girls could play on them. If instead the girls teams were turned into gender-neutral teams and boys played on them, those teams would likely go away because the parents wouldn't support them being funded. So don't look at them as two bonus extra teams that boys can play on. They were created for girls, and they would go away if boys started playing on them.
  #62  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:00 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
cmosdes, I still don't see how you think allowing boys to play on girls teams would solve all those problems you mention. Aren't all those things issues at an all boys school with all boys teams? Some boys won't make varsity. Some boys will have to play at a lower level. Some boys will sit on the bench for significant parts of the game. Some boys eventually will not make the team at any level. Some boys will have to learn a new sport and start at the bottom. All that happens at a boys schools. So what would letting boys be on the girls team solve?

And keep in mind that the reason many of those girls teams are there in the first place is the parents supported them being created so girls could play on them. If instead the girls teams were turned into gender-neutral teams and boys played on them, those teams would likely go away because the parents wouldn't support them being funded. So don't look at them as two bonus extra teams that boys can play on. They were created for girls, and they would go away if boys started playing on them.
I never advocated that letting boys play on girls teams would solve any of those problems.

I've been saying all along that the plain and simple truth is that some kids just will not get an opportunity to play. It just isn't possible. Some seem to feel that if you are a girl and excluded from playing because they just can't compete physically with the larger boys, that is damaging and bad for society. That same notion is not thought to apply to boys. Why?

For some reason, everyone seems to be a-ok if boys are excluded from these activities but when girls are excluded it is an imperative they be allowed to participate. I'm all in favor of creating more opportunities for more people. Therefore, we should create girls only leagues. When we look at the pool of genetically disadvantaged people, that is the easiest and cleanest way to create leagues for some of those who otherwise couldn't compete. That pool includes both boys and girls, but there is only so much you can do. Unfortunately, it DOES mean some boys, and girls, will still be unable to play. Society won't crumble because of it.

But if people want to justify making a girls' leagues because it is critical for their development, then they are being hypocritical because they aren't then acknowledging the apparent damage to the majority of boys who don't get the opportunity for the same reason the girls weren't getting the opportunity. If it was damaging to the girls, it will be damaging to the boys. A large number of boys are excluded for EXACTLY the same reason the girls were excluded.

Last edited by cmosdes; 07-12-2019 at 09:02 PM.
  #63  
Old 07-15-2019, 10:35 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,562
Well I suppose you could create a coed team where they have to have an equal number of males and females on the playing field all the time.

We did it in coed softball where you had 10 players and half women but women were pitched a different ball and if a man was walked, 2 people walked.

We also did this in coed PE (and it was a PAIN) where each time the ball was sent to a side, at least one girl had to return it.
  #64  
Old 07-15-2019, 12:17 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
If there is an issue that girls aren't allowed to play on boys' teams that are due to policy, change the policy. However, most of the arguments here are about giving girls their own leagues because they can't physically compete against the best of the boys. That same limitation applies to the vast majority of boys.
No, it simply does not. They are not equivalent.

Quote:
Two different issues. Genetic disadvantage or social and cultural disadvantages. Title IX didn't say give girls an opportunity to make the boys' teams, it said you have to have as many girls playing sports as you have boys (percentage wise). If the issue is cultural, just legislate that girls must be allowed to try out for boys' teams.
Have you really, honestly gotten to this point in your life not understanding the disadvantages women are up against?

Quote:
I don't care how hard I train, I will never be able to compete against the best athletes. So I have the same genetic disadvantage as any girl.
No, you don't. Their "genetic" disadvantage is that they're women. Your alleged disadvantage - I have no idea, specifically, what the hell you claim it is - is different from that if you're male.

Quote:
So yes, the VAST majority of men can't play organized sports once you get beyond grade school.
So men don't play organized sports after grade school? Gosh, what the hell is it I do Tuesday and Thursday nights, despite being old and slow?

You are, again, confusing not playing sports with can't play sports, in the sadly predictable campaign of men taking things away from women.

And seriously, "sportsball"?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 07-15-2019 at 12:19 PM.
  #65  
Old 07-15-2019, 05:25 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
No, it simply does not. They are not equivalent.
Because....why, exactly? Genetics is a limitation for both men and women. How is that not equivalent? Be specific here. I really want to know if you are saying that you feel with proper training you would have been able to make it onto any collegiate team. Not a club or intramural team, but the inter collegiate team. You claim to be slow, but with proper training could you have competed at the highest levels of track? Do you think MOST men could train to make a team?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Have you really, honestly gotten to this point in your life not understanding the disadvantages women are up against?
Of course I have. But in the case of athletics, me and a whole slew of other men are up against the exact same disadvantages. It is great women get opportunities to play. Yay for them! Long overdue. But it is wrong to think it is just women being shut out of these opportunities. You seem to be saying it is just woman and the only thing keeping the majority of men who don't play the higher level sports is just training. Are you advocating that most men could make these teams if they trained hard enough?


Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
No, you don't. Their "genetic" disadvantage is that they're women. Your alleged disadvantage - I have no idea, specifically, what the hell you claim it is - is different from that if you're male.
Why the quotes? What makes them women is genetics. What makes me 5'5 is genetics. Same thing. Nothing different about it. I can no more train to be 6' than a woman can train to not be a woman. Genetics. Not "genetics." Sure, I can train to reach a higher level performance than the average woman, but that doesn't mean I *can* train to reach the levels necessary to compete against the men playing at the highest levels no matter how hard I train. Just because I'm a guy doesn't mean I can do whatever any other guy can do, even with unlimited resources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
So men don't play organized sports after grade school? Gosh, what the hell is it I do Tuesday and Thursday nights, despite being old and slow?
Most men are not playing collegiate and varsity level sports. There are LOTS of men playing recreationally as well as lots of women. I do, too. But I don't get to play them by COURT MANDATED AVAILABILITY, as with Title IX. I had to go find other options to be able to play these sports.
So, *gasp*... you are too old and slow to play at the highest levels but somehow aren't permanently damaged by that (or maybe you are, I honestly have no idea. I can only assume because you always post with a lot of insights and many analysis I really enjoy, particularly about baseball.). Excellent you get that opportunity! You found a way to get to play despite being old and slow. Do you feel you COULD have the talent to make a collegiate team if you tried and trained hard enough, even in theory? Because if not, then what prevents that? That you can't or that you don't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
You are, again, confusing not playing sports with can't play sports, in the sadly predictable campaign of men taking things away from women.
I don't think I really understand how you to got this conclusion. Unless you are advocating that any guy with enough desire could make any varsity/collegiate team they wanted with the proper training and opportunity. Is that what you are saying? Because MY stance is that there are men who CAN'T play sports as well as other men. You seem to be saying that there men who simply have chosen to not play sports and the thing keeping them from playing on the collegiate/varsity teams is something other than genetics.
  #66  
Old 07-15-2019, 06:02 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,765
You’re saying that being 5’5” in height is the same as being a female in terms of missed athletic opportunities?!

In the NFL, arguably the most physically demanding sports organization in the US (if not the world), Trindon Holliday was able to have a 5 year career as a wide receiver at 5’5”.

Muggsy Bogues, who at 5’3” might call you tall, played in the NBA for 14 years, and represented the US in the 1985 FIBA World Cup.

Jose Altuve is one inch taller than you and has been to the MLB All-Star game 6 times, and in 2017 when he led his team to a World Series title he was the AL MVP and was named AP’s Athlete of the Year. That means out of all athletes of all sports, they chose him, someone who is taller than you by a single inch.

And you equate that genetic problem to being female, and having no chance to even compete against professional male athletes of most sports, and in many cases not even against more talented younger amateurs. If this is your perspective no wonder your argument is so unreasonable.
  #67  
Old 07-15-2019, 06:56 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,780
You are aware that there are girls out there who don't have all the physical qualifications or talent to be athletes, even on womens' teams, right? Are they being discriminated against?

  #68  
Old 07-15-2019, 06:57 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
You’re saying that being 5’5” in height is the same as being a female in terms of missed athletic opportunities?!

In the NFL, arguably the most physically demanding sports organization in the US (if not the world), Trindon Holliday was able to have a 5 year career as a wide receiver at 5’5”.

Muggsy Bogues, who at 5’3” might call you tall, played in the NBA for 14 years, and represented the US in the 1985 FIBA World Cup.

Jose Altuve is one inch taller than you and has been to the MLB All-Star game 6 times, and in 2017 when he led his team to a World Series title he was the AL MVP and was named AP’s Athlete of the Year. That means out of all athletes of all sports, they chose him, someone who is taller than you by a single inch.

And you equate that genetic problem to being female, and having no chance to even compete against professional male athletes of most sports, and in many cases not even against more talented younger amateurs. If this is your perspective no wonder your argument is so unreasonable.
Don't be obtuse. I no more said being 5'5 kept me out of the NBA than I said being 5'5 kept me from being able to fly around the moon. I said I can never train to be 6'.

Trindon Holliday was not a receiver. He caught 2 passes in a 4 year career. He was a return guy. Way to severely distort that fact.

Jose Altuve is... oh yeah... taller. Gee, could he have better genetics? Maybe I should have worked harder and I could have gotten to his height and been an all star. Oh yeah, and been born with ungodly eye hand coordination, lightning quick reflexes and intrinsic athletic abilities. No, I got lazy and didn't work hard enough was all that kept me and apparently most men from playing in MLB, by your argument.

Muggsy Boques could dunk. So now you want to say that if I train hard enough I could learn how to jump that high, too? Really? Or maybe genetically he had a gift for elevation that I could never match? Meaning... riiiight... genetically I'm locked out of playing at that same level.

I asked RickJay and I'll ask you. Are you advocating that I could have made the NBA if I had trained hard enough and wanted it bad enough? Are you advocating that is true for most men? Are you advocating most men can make the NFL and have a probowl career if they only would work harder?

We'll keep this simple.
Do we agree that most men do not play at the top levels?
If you say most men do, we are done. I can't argue against that viewpoint.
Do you think MOST men *could* compete at the top levels if they only trained harder and had the right opportunities? Bear in mind, this isn't a question about if MORE men could get there, it is a question of whether MOST men could get there. That is important.
If you feel MOST men could, with sufficient opportunity and desire, compete at the highest levels, that explains our different views on this and why you think I'm being unreasonable. If you feel that most men can never reach those levels, congratulations, you just reached the same unreasonable argument I've been making.
It is true that ONLY men can reach those top levels, but that is a far, far cry from saying that is available to most men. It just isn't, in my view.
  #69  
Old 07-15-2019, 07:05 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
You are aware that there are girls out there who don't have all the physical qualifications or talent to be athletes, even on womens' teams, right? Are they being discriminated against?

I can't tell. Is this directed at me?
  #70  
Old 07-15-2019, 07:31 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Don't be obtuse. I no more said being 5'5 kept me out of the NBA than I said being 5'5 kept me from being able to fly around the moon. I said I can never train to be 6'.

Trindon Holliday was not a receiver. He caught 2 passes in a 4 year career. He was a return guy. Way to severely distort that fact.
The fact that he could even make an NFL team is more than any woman can hope to do. Height is not an automatic disqualification. Gender is.

Quote:
Jose Altuve is... oh yeah... taller. Gee, could he have better genetics? Maybe I should have worked harder and I could have gotten to his height and been an all star. Oh yeah, and been born with ungodly eye hand coordination, lightning quick reflexes and intrinsic athletic abilities. No, I got lazy and didn't work hard enough was all that kept me and apparently most men from playing in MLB, by your argument.
Again, you’re missing the point. Not only can short men compete at the top level of athletics, they can be among the very best. And you think that if he was one inch shorter that would have changed anything? Freddie Patek played in the MLB at 5’5” in the 70s and was a 3 time All-Star.

Quote:
Muggsy Boques could dunk. So now you want to say that if I train hard enough I could learn how to jump that high, too? Really? Or maybe genetically he had a gift for elevation that I could never match? Meaning... riiiight... genetically I'm locked out of playing at that same level.
Maybe, sure, if you had the drive and discipline, perhaps you could have. I have no way of knowing. If you were a woman, though, I would know with 100% certainty. That’s the point.

Quote:
I asked RickJay and I'll ask you. Are you advocating that I could have made the NBA if I had trained hard enough and wanted it bad enough? Are you advocating that is true for most men? Are you advocating most men can make the NFL and have a probowl career if they only would work harder?
Of course not. Are you suggesting that if most men can’t be in the NBA that the WNBA shouldn’t exist? Because that’s what it looks like you’re saying. Keep digging.

Quote:
We'll keep this simple.
Do we agree that most men do not play at the top levels?
If you say most men do, we are done. I can't argue against that viewpoint.
Do you think MOST men *could* compete at the top levels if they only trained harder and had the right opportunities? Bear in mind, this isn't a question about if MORE men could get there, it is a question of whether MOST men could get there. That is important.
I will say that in my estimation, mostmen can compete at a level that no women can’t. That’s the point.

Quote:
If you feel MOST men could, with sufficient opportunity and desire, compete at the highest levels, that explains our different views on this and why you think I'm being unreasonable. If you feel that most men can never reach those levels, congratulations, you just reached the same unreasonable argument I've been making.
It is true that ONLY men can reach those top levels, but that is a far, far cry from saying that is available to most men. It just isn't, in my view.
Again, zero women. Zero. Slightly more than half of the world’s population cannot compete at that level. It is so helpful to give women an opportunity to compete athletically amongst each other, to learn the lessons of competition and experience the pain and joy of sports. You suggest that unless most men can compete at the top level of competition that no women should be able to. I don’t even know how to respond to that, especially as a father of two daughters.
  #71  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:07 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I can't tell. Is this directed at me?
Partly. And even if it's not, what do you say to that? That there are girls out there who will never make a team, because they don't have the physical form, or talent, etc? Are they being discriminated against? Even when there are teams for women, they still don't qualify.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 07-15-2019 at 08:08 PM.
  #72  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:12 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
The fact that he could even make an NFL team is more than any woman can hope to do. Height is not an automatic disqualification. Gender is.
Gender along with a long list of other factors that are, to a significant degree, genetically predetermined. Unless, again, you are saying most men can train to be a 350lb lineman in the NFL if only they would work harder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Again, you’re missing the point. Not only can short men compete at the top level of athletics, they can be among the very best. And you think that if he was one inch shorter that would have changed anything? Freddie Patek played in the MLB at 5’5” in the 70s and was a 3 time All-Star.
No, I get the point. You focused on one aspect of genetics and pointed out that some people who overcame ONE aspect of genetics made the highest levels of their sports and used that to try to say genetics for men is not a factor in making the highest levels of sport. I didn't say one inch shorter was the difference. You missed the point entirely. You ignored the comment about reflexes and eye hand coordination and jumping and dunking all being things beyond training that keep most people from being able to make the highest levels of sport. MOST people. Not all. MOST. Yes, those guys had to train ridiculously hard to get to the top levels and the only way they could make it was if they were male. But being male was only one genetic trait that allowed them to get there. There are lots of others that MOST of us do not have, male or female. Your contention seems to be that MOST men could train to get there if they only worked harder. I do not agree on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Maybe, sure, if you had the drive and discipline, perhaps you could have. I have no way of knowing. If you were a woman, though, I would know with 100% certainty. That’s the point.
Sure. You are clearly being difficult about this. 100% of women, to be sure. But the number for men is not significantly different than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Of course not. Are you suggesting that if most men can’t be in the NBA that the WNBA shouldn’t exist? Because that’s what it looks like you’re saying. Keep digging.
Where do you come up with this stuff?? Have you not seen me post many times that it is great women's leagues exist? I do not get why you continually chose to mischaracterize my statements. I never implied that in any way, shape or form. Stop it. It is annoying and detracts from this. I'm saying the argument that women should have their own leagues because it is damaging to them not to be able to compete are completely ignoring the fact MOST people, men and women, don't get that opportunity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I will say that in my estimation, mostmen can compete at a level that no women can’t. That’s the point.
I'll say this.. you are consistent in making strawman. Wow. You completely sidestepped the question. So I'll ask again.
Do you think MOST men *could* compete at the top levels if they only trained harder and had the right opportunities? This isn't a question of whether men could outperform women. This is a question of whether most men could outperform the top performers given the right training and opportunity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Again, zero women. Zero. Slightly more than half of the world’s population cannot compete at that level.
Actually, my argument is that the number is WAY more than half. WAY more. Just because someone is a guy doesn't mean they can compete at that level. Are you saying they can?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
It is so helpful to give women an opportunity to compete athletically amongst each other, to learn the lessons of competition and experience the pain and joy of sports.
I agree!!! It is helpful for, well, guys, too. Even the guys that aren't genetically gifted enough to make the top tiers. They can gain the lessons of competition and pain and joy of sports, too. But for some reason, guys who aren't gifted with those talents are written off by people like you as saying it is their own damn fault they don't get to play at those levels because they should have trained harder. They should have learned to dunk despite being 5'5. They should have learned to have amazing reflexes. It wasn't genetics that kept most guys from getting there. It was just laziness. That is what you are saying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
You suggest that unless most men can compete at the top level of competition that no women should be able to. I don’t even know how to respond to that, especially as a father of two daughters.
Again, I never, ever, not once said that women shouldn't get this opportunity. Ever. Stop saying it. Find me one time I said that and I'll buy you dinner at the restaurant of your choice. I've said the opposite on several occasions. But you are so dead set on frothing at the mouth and trying to defend women's rights to have opportunities you are completely miscontruing my argument.
  #73  
Old 07-15-2019, 08:27 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Partly. And even if it's not, what do you say to that? That there are girls out there who will never make a team, because they don't have the physical form, or talent, etc? Are they being discriminated against? Even when there are teams for women, they still don't qualify.
No, they aren't being discriminated against.
Lots and lots and LOTS of people can't make these teams, even if we open the opportunities for some by making women's teams.
I'm all in favor of trying to get more opportunities for more people. That is great! I just can't get behind the argument it is damaging to the people not good enough to make the highest level teams.
  #74  
Old 07-16-2019, 11:40 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Because....why, exactly? Genetics is a limitation for both men and women. How is that not equivalent?
What you said is that they're the same genetic difference. I am sure you must know that the difference between a person wth XY chromosomes and a person with XX chromosomes is a different thing than two people who might have different genes for height or lung capacity.

More pertinently, the genetic difference between men and women means that in high level athletics there is no crossover in talent. None. A woman sprinter cannot compete with equivalently skilled males in the same age group and level. The number of female hockey players in college who can play men's college hockey is zero. Women have no chance and no way to catch up. Men CAN. Many, many, many elite male athletes are weaker and slower than men who have failed to reach the same level. Wayne Gretzky was objectively slower and weaker than thousands of boys and men who failed to make it to the NHL. A lot of the genetic difference between men can be made up by effort and smarts and there is no clear way to know who is capable of that until they try. Serena Williams could never compete on the men's tour, ever, and it's very clear why.

Quote:
Why the quotes? What makes them women is genetics. What makes me 5'5 is genetics. Same thing. Nothing different about it. I can no more train to be 6' than a woman can train to not be a woman.
I am unaware of a sport called "being tall." The 2017 American League Most Valuable Player, Jose Altuve, claims to be 5'6" and might well be shorter. Being short is, in many sports, a disadvantage; it is not a hopeless point of elimination. You are also, of course, blessed with the other advantages and privilege of being a man.

Quote:
Excellent you get that opportunity! You found a way to get to play despite being old and slow. Do you feel you COULD have the talent to make a collegiate team if you tried and trained hard enough, even in theory? Because if not, then what prevents that? That you can't or that you don't?
I absolutely could have been a collegiate baseball player had I made the effort and been better coached (where I grew up the coaching sucked.) I sure as shit would not have taken a woman's place on their team, because I think women deserve their own opportunities and space.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #75  
Old 07-16-2019, 12:55 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
No, they aren't being discriminated against.
Lots and lots and LOTS of people can't make these teams, even if we open the opportunities for some by making women's teams.
I'm all in favor of trying to get more opportunities for more people. That is great! I just can't get behind the argument it is damaging to the people not good enough to make the highest level teams.
Wait. Unathletic women are NOT being discriminated against, but unathletic men ARE.

That's all I needed to hear.
  #76  
Old 07-16-2019, 01:24 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
What you said is that they're the same genetic difference. I am sure you must know that the difference between a person wth XY chromosomes and a person with XX chromosomes is a different thing than two people who might have different genes for height or lung capacity.
Please, give me a direct quote that shows I said that. That is just wrong. I never claimed there was the same genetic difference. That is absurd. I said the difference is the same, genetics. Huge difference. It is genetics which prevents women from being able to compete with men. It is genetics which prevents most men from being able to compete at the high levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
More pertinently, the genetic difference between men and women means that in high level athletics there is no crossover in talent. None. A woman sprinter cannot compete with equivalently skilled males in the same age group and level. The number of female hockey players in college who can play men's college hockey is zero. Women have no chance and no way to catch up. Men CAN. Many, many, many elite male athletes are weaker and slower than men who have failed to reach the same level. Wayne Gretzky was objectively slower and weaker than thousands of boys and men who failed to make it to the NHL. A lot of the genetic difference between men can be made up by effort and smarts and there is no clear way to know who is capable of that until they try. Serena Williams could never compete on the men's tour, ever, and it's very clear why.
SOME men can catch up. SOME. Not all, not even a significant percentage. Why is this so hard to get? I don't understand. You completely ignored the questions. Are you suggesting that most men, even half, can compete against Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, Wayne Gretzky if only they would try harder? MOST men. Even half. 10% Against Roger Federer??


Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I am unaware of a sport called "being tall." The 2017 American League Most Valuable Player, Jose Altuve, claims to be 5'6" and might well be shorter. Being short is, in many sports, a disadvantage; it is not a hopeless point of elimination. You are also, of course, blessed with the other advantages and privilege of being a man.
See previous posts. Which ones can you name where being short isn't a disadvantage? Being a jockey, maybe. What other advantages do you think I have, simply because I am a man? You think all men have the reflexes and skills of a Jose Altuve just because they are a man? Do you not see the outlier Jose Altuve is in the world of baseball and sports in general? Just because I'm a guy does not mean I can compete against the best athletes in the world. Just because a small handful of short athletes made it to the top of the sport doesn't mean all short people can. It is a statistical long shot, to say the least.

Even the PGA is going tall: https://www.pgatour.com/tour-insider...n-success.html

You acknowledge that being short is a disadvantage in many sports. So maybe we are getting somewhere. We can agree that I've been put at a disadvantage genetically because of my height for trying to make most sports teams. Why is it such a leap to then go down the list other attributes that top athletes have and realize there is a genetic component to more of them that not every male will have and cannot overcome when taken as a whole and not individually? Sure, the oddball outlier can overcome a genetic disadvantage, but they better have other advantages that make up for it. Not everyone has that. Even if they are male. As a matter of fact, most don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I absolutely could have been a collegiate baseball player had I made the effort and been better coached (where I grew up the coaching sucked.) I sure as shit would not have taken a woman's place on their team, because I think women deserve their own opportunities and space.
Great. Could you have been a collegiate hockey player? How about basketball? Golf? Swimming? You think you could compete for the Tour de France if you trained really hard on a bike? You honestly believe that had you had the focus and opportunity you could have made it to the top of any of those sports if you only tried hard enough? I think you don't give nearly enough credit to the players that make it to the top of their sports. The specialized skills and abilities they have are beyond amazing.

To sum up. Being male is necessary but not sufficient to get that elusive playtime in sports. There are a lot of other factors. What separates the best athletes from everyone else is a combination of training, a bit (or a lot) of luck, desire, and genetics. To think genetics doesn't play a role in separating the top players from everyone else is insane. Part of that genetic makeup requires one to be male (necessary). But that doesn't mean every male could do what other men can do (not sufficient). In the end, there are far more people, men and women, without the winning genetic makeup to play at those levels than there are people who have it.

Seriously, how controversial can that last paragraph really be?
  #77  
Old 07-16-2019, 01:31 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Wait. Unathletic women are NOT being discriminated against, but unathletic men ARE.

That's all I needed to hear.
You'd be doing me a huge favor if you could quote back to me when I said unathletic men are being discriminated against.

Thanks.
  #78  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:57 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
You'd be doing me a huge favor if you could quote back to me when I said unathletic men are being discriminated against.

Thanks.
No, you’re “just asking questions” as you’ve been doing this whole thread. You’re implying stuff that is reprehensible then when confronted about you ask where you stated it. That’s why I’ve bowed out, I’m here for a sincere discussion, not some twisted game of yours.
  #79  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:41 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
No, you’re “just asking questions” as you’ve been doing this whole thread. You’re implying stuff that is reprehensible then when confronted about you ask where you stated it. That’s why I’ve bowed out, I’m here for a sincere discussion, not some twisted game of yours.
That's kinda funny. You mischaracterize my statements, build strawmen that you then attribute to me, then accuse me of a playing a twisted game. You dodge all the questions I did ask and decided to answer the questions you made up for yourself, then tell me I'm implying stuff that is reprehensible.
If I have this right, I'm accused of making statements I didn't make and when I ask for quotes where I made them, I'm told I'm reprehensible for asking to be shown where I've made those statements. Got it.
  #80  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:30 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
SOME men can catch up. SOME. Not all, not even a significant percentage. Why is this so hard to get? I don't understand. You completely ignored the questions. Are you suggesting that most men, even half, can compete against Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, Wayne Gretzky if only they would try harder? MOST men. Even half. 10% Against Roger Federer??
There is no right or Title IX for professional sports, so who cares?

What does this have to do with fairness for women in sports?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #81  
Old 07-16-2019, 08:22 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Please, give me a direct quote that shows I said that. That is just wrong. I never claimed there was the same genetic difference. That is absurd. I said the difference is the same, genetics. Huge difference. It is genetics which prevents women from being able to compete with men. It is genetics which prevents most men from being able to compete at the high levels.

SOME men can catch up. SOME. Not all, not even a significant percentage. Why is this so hard to get? I don't understand. You completely ignored the questions. Are you suggesting that most men, even half, can compete against Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, Wayne Gretzky if only they would try harder? MOST men. Even half. 10% Against Roger Federer??


See previous posts. Which ones can you name where being short isn't a disadvantage? Being a jockey, maybe. What other advantages do you think I have, simply because I am a man? You think all men have the reflexes and skills of a Jose Altuve just because they are a man? Do you not see the outlier Jose Altuve is in the world of baseball and sports in general? Just because I'm a guy does not mean I can compete against the best athletes in the world. Just because a small handful of short athletes made it to the top of the sport doesn't mean all short people can. It is a statistical long shot, to say the least.

Even the PGA is going tall: https://www.pgatour.com/tour-insider...n-success.html

You acknowledge that being short is a disadvantage in many sports. So maybe we are getting somewhere. We can agree that I've been put at a disadvantage genetically because of my height for trying to make most sports teams. Why is it such a leap to then go down the list other attributes that top athletes have and realize there is a genetic component to more of them that not every male will have and cannot overcome when taken as a whole and not individually? Sure, the oddball outlier can overcome a genetic disadvantage, but they better have other advantages that make up for it. Not everyone has that. Even if they are male. As a matter of fact, most don't.


Great. Could you have been a collegiate hockey player? How about basketball? Golf? Swimming? You think you could compete for the Tour de France if you trained really hard on a bike? You honestly believe that had you had the focus and opportunity you could have made it to the top of any of those sports if you only tried hard enough? I think you don't give nearly enough credit to the players that make it to the top of their sports. The specialized skills and abilities they have are beyond amazing.

To sum up. Being male is necessary but not sufficient to get that elusive playtime in sports. There are a lot of other factors. What separates the best athletes from everyone else is a combination of training, a bit (or a lot) of luck, desire, and genetics. To think genetics doesn't play a role in separating the top players from everyone else is insane. Part of that genetic makeup requires one to be male (necessary). But that doesn't mean every male could do what other men can do (not sufficient). In the end, there are far more people, men and women, without the winning genetic makeup to play at those levels than there are people who have it.

Seriously, how controversial can that last paragraph really be?
There are different leagues for different ability levels. What’s wrong with recognizing biology and facts and that if women had to compete with men in sport they’d be stuck in the high school/middle school boy leagues? That’s not good for society is it?
  #82  
Old 07-16-2019, 08:36 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There is no right or Title IX for professional sports, so who cares?

What does this have to do with fairness for women in sports?
You have two questions and I will address them both. But I want to be really clear on how I'm answering, so I'll do the second one first. I you care about the answer to the second, read the bottom. But it is of lesser importance.

*********************************************
I completely agree it is unfair to tell women the only way they can play on a sports team is if they out compete the genetic outliers.

But it isn't fair to the majority of people. Fortunately, as you indicated earlier, there is a really simple way we can still make competitive, high level sports available to some of those to whom this is unfair. Use gender. Awesome! More people get a chance to play and that is a very good thing.
*********************************************
So far, I hope there is no controversy in what I wrote.

Now the controversial part.
Not getting to play highly competitive, highly organized sports is not going to be hugely detrimental to those that don't get those opportunities. It just isn't. Using that as a justification for making new leagues is ignoring the fact there are still many, many others who must be being harmed and not caring.

It is a really, really good idea to make these things available to more people. Unfortunately, the force of "because it is a good idea" is not usually compelling enough to get people to do things. So now we need the force of law. Generally "because it is the right thing to do" isn't strong enough to get a law, so we make up these rationales that women are harmed if they don't get to play. THAT is where I get stuck.

If that truly is the justification for making new leagues we are still causing detriment to a majority of people. I'm fully behind making sports available to more people and using gender is a really, really good way to do that. Not because women are harmed if they don't get to play, but because sports is good for people in general and without these separate leagues we would be limiting these opportunities.


About the pro question:

I was not the one who first brought up professionals. I was happy to leave this at the collegiate and high school level but others brought in the pros. I was simply answering that. The examples you and Atamasama gave would seem to indicate that you two feel those outliers must indicate there are no genetic disadvantages the majority of men couldn't overcome and be able to compete against the best of the best. So I was asking if you feel that is true in all sports.
  #83  
Old 07-16-2019, 08:58 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
There are different leagues for different ability levels. What’s wrong with recognizing biology and facts and that if women had to compete with men in sport they’d be stuck in the high school/middle school boy leagues? That’s not good for society is it?
Nothing wrong with using biology and facts to open higher level/higher organized sports to more people. Nothing wrong with it at all. I've said that a dozen times (okay, I didn't count, but it sure feels like that).

I just do not agree that society in general is harmed if those opportunities aren't compelled by law to be made available. There are just way too many other people for whom this opportunity will never exist for me to think that. We opened up more opportunities, which is good, but we are still excluding many, including women. Life goes on.
  #84  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:03 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Nothing wrong with using biology and facts to open higher level/higher organized sports to more people. Nothing wrong with it at all. I've said that a dozen times (okay, I didn't count, but it sure feels like that).

I just do not agree that society in general is harmed if those opportunities aren't compelled by law to be made available. There are just way too many other people for whom this opportunity will never exist for me to think that. We opened up more opportunities, which is good, but we are still excluding many, including women. Life goes on.
In college and high school it’s sort of necessary to have these spaces/policies for women. Otherwise they’d be almost completely shut out. Should everyone who’d like to compete have an opportunity to? Sure. Why not expand high school and college athletics and have more recreational leagues.

Or get athletics out of school and have inclusive municipal/state leagues for everybody? But forcing girl teams to accept boys isn’t necessary in most cases in my opinion.
  #85  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:11 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
You'd be doing me a huge favor if you could quote back to me when I said unathletic men are being discriminated against.

Thanks.
So what are you complaining about? If it's not discrimination to exclude women from womens teams if they're not athletic, then how are men who aren't athletic being discriminated against?

Are you implying that having a womens league is discriminatory, period? And if not, WTF is your point?
  #86  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:58 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So what are you complaining about? If it's not discrimination to exclude women from womens teams if they're not athletic, then how are men who aren't athletic being discriminated against?

Are you implying that having a womens league is discriminatory, period? And if not, WTF is your point?
I see. You claim I made the argument that men who don't get to play sports are discriminated against (I didn't) and then ask me to defend it (I can't. I didn't make the claim to begin with). You even quoted me asking for the cite where I made that claim (I never did and you won't find it) and your brilliant retort was not to go find where I made that claim (which you can't find because I never made it), but instead asking me why I'm inconsistent in a claim I never made.

I have no idea how to answer your question.
  #87  
Old 07-16-2019, 10:10 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
In college and high school it’s sort of necessary to have these spaces/policies for women. Otherwise they’d be almost completely shut out. Should everyone who’d like to compete have an opportunity to? Sure. Why not expand high school and college athletics and have more recreational leagues.

Or get athletics out of school and have inclusive municipal/state leagues for everybody? But forcing girl teams to accept boys isn’t necessary in most cases in my opinion.
It is necessary in the sense that women would be shut out if we didn't have these spaces. I agree. I don't agree it is necessary for society in general to make these spaces available. I'm not even sure it is better for society for these spots to be required by force of law. It is a really superb thing and something we should be doing. No doubt about it. But once you get to necessary, I must disagree. Otherwise, there are far too many others that are still shut out and if shutting out people is bad for society we are still doing it.
  #88  
Old 07-16-2019, 10:30 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,780
So again, what point are you trying to make here?
  #89  
Old 07-16-2019, 10:42 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So again, what point are you trying to make here?
What point do you think I'm making?
You've accused me of things I haven't said which tells me you can't be arsed to actually read and comprehend what I've written and instead intend to make up whatever you want. So make up what you think I'm saying go with that.
I've answered every post in good faith. Your post I have no intention of addressing.
  #90  
Old 07-16-2019, 11:23 PM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
What point do you think I'm making?
How about you just state your point? So everyone is clear.
  #91  
Old 07-16-2019, 11:57 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
You'd be doing me a huge favor if you could quote back to me when I said unathletic men are being discriminated against.

Thanks.
C'mon, this is as easy as dunking on short guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
what about those of us boys at a disadvantage because of genetics?

Last edited by Chisquirrel; 07-16-2019 at 11:57 PM. Reason: Missed a nut
  #92  
Old 07-17-2019, 09:32 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
C'mon, this is as easy as dunking on short guys.
Thanks for posting this. That statement was never in my mind a claim of discrimination but when I started to think about how someone else might see it I realize it could easily be construed as such. So I apologize to Guinastasia for the snarky response. I should have read my statements more carefully to see how they could have been construed as such. I did post a non-snarky request for evidence of where I said such a thing, but this is the first time anyone did. So again, thanks.

Any competition is going to sort people based on abilities that align with the rules of the competition. If you setup a paper cutting contest it will select for people with scissors over people with a plastic fork. Setting up a contest where only right handed scissors are provided will obviously sort for right handed people and there are legitimate claims it is discriminatory against left handed people. The former contest is discriminatory against people with just plastic forks. Or plastic spoons. Pretty soon someone will come along with an ultra sharp razor blade and then contest could be considered discriminatory against people with scissors.

In the case of sports, the nature of the competition sorts towards those with specific genetic characteristics. People can legitimately claim it is discriminatory against women but in that same vein they must also claim it is discriminatory against men without the genetics to be among the best. I don't see sports that way so my statement of "what about" wasn't a claim of discrimination in my mind. It led to a snarky response to Guinastasia which I now regret and apologize for.

It was pointing out there are others beyond just women for whom the rules of the competition select against. If you feel the rules of any competition, which by their nature MUST select one group over another, are discrimination, then all competitions are discriminatory. I do not see it that way which is why I answered Guinastasia's question about whether it is discriminatory against women who don't make the higher level teams with a no, setting up the apparent contradictory answers.

As far as the discrimination question goes, I don't see this as discriminatory against any group. The rules aren't being setup to purposely make it more difficult or impossible for one specific group over another. While intentional exclusion of one group isn't necessarily needed for discrimination (SAT questions never intentionally biased against certain groups, but do), there does come a point where that factor has to be considered otherwise any sorting scheme is a form of discrimination. For sports, the nature of them does make it impossible for many to compete at the highest levels, and, unfortunately, that includes all girls. If a girl were somehow able to be be good enough, she'd get to be on those teams, so I don't see it as intentionally discriminatory.

I hope that helps. Maybe not. Maybe I'll get crucified and people will point out what I've already said. Girls are sorted against when it comes to sports. If you want to call that discrimination, go ahead, but then you need to be consistent and say it is discriminatory against many guys. Further, as Guinastasia pointed out, you'll also need to acknowledge it is discriminatory against many girls when women's only leagues are formed.

Drunky Smurf -
I don't know if that answers your question or not.
I'm afraid I'm repeating myself but I'll try. If we did nothing to separate out the genetically gifted from the rest we would have nothing but genetically gifted playing sports. We should try to find ways to allow others to get to play. People looked around and noticed girls were excluded and decided it was imperative they get to play. While I think it is fantastic we can find ways to easily let them play, I think people who defend the forced formation of leagues for girls by saying it is critical for their well being and society in general are either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the huge numbers of others who don't get that same opportunity and never could have that same opportunity. Some have claimed that with the formation of men's and women's leagues there are no longer any people for whom that opportunity is an impossibility. They seem to feel any man, if they train hard enough, could compete against the top male athletes. Similarly, I presume, for women.

My point...society and people in general are not significantly damaged by excluding people from playing sports at the highest levels. If it were, we are in trouble because there are far, far more among us who can never get to that level, male or female, then there are those that can.
  #93  
Old 07-17-2019, 12:07 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,780
So wait, you're saying it's discriminatory to have a separate league for women, simply because if they're at a disadvantage against men, so are other some other men?

I'm seriously fucking confused.
  #94  
Old 07-17-2019, 01:48 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So wait, you're saying it's discriminatory to have a separate league for women, simply because if they're at a disadvantage against men, so are other some other men?

I'm seriously fucking confused.
I'm saying none of this is discriminatory to anyone. It is life and the nature of competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes
If you feel the rules of any competition, which by their nature MUST select one group over another, are discrimination, then all competitions are discriminatory. I do not see it that way
  #95  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:59 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Thanks for posting this. That statement was never in my mind a claim of discrimination but when I started to think about how someone else might see it I realize it could easily be construed as such. So I apologize to Guinastasia for the snarky response. I should have read my statements more carefully to see how they could have been construed as such. I did post a non-snarky request for evidence of where I said such a thing, but this is the first time anyone did. So again, thanks.

Any competition is going to sort people based on abilities that align with the rules of the competition. If you setup a paper cutting contest it will select for people with scissors over people with a plastic fork. Setting up a contest where only right handed scissors are provided will obviously sort for right handed people and there are legitimate claims it is discriminatory against left handed people. The former contest is discriminatory against people with just plastic forks. Or plastic spoons. Pretty soon someone will come along with an ultra sharp razor blade and then contest could be considered discriminatory against people with scissors.

In the case of sports, the nature of the competition sorts towards those with specific genetic characteristics. People can legitimately claim it is discriminatory against women but in that same vein they must also claim it is discriminatory against men without the genetics to be among the best. I don't see sports that way so my statement of "what about" wasn't a claim of discrimination in my mind. It led to a snarky response to Guinastasia which I now regret and apologize for.

It was pointing out there are others beyond just women for whom the rules of the competition select against. If you feel the rules of any competition, which by their nature MUST select one group over another, are discrimination, then all competitions are discriminatory. I do not see it that way which is why I answered Guinastasia's question about whether it is discriminatory against women who don't make the higher level teams with a no, setting up the apparent contradictory answers.

As far as the discrimination question goes, I don't see this as discriminatory against any group. The rules aren't being setup to purposely make it more difficult or impossible for one specific group over another. While intentional exclusion of one group isn't necessarily needed for discrimination (SAT questions never intentionally biased against certain groups, but do), there does come a point where that factor has to be considered otherwise any sorting scheme is a form of discrimination. For sports, the nature of them does make it impossible for many to compete at the highest levels, and, unfortunately, that includes all girls. If a girl were somehow able to be be good enough, she'd get to be on those teams, so I don't see it as intentionally discriminatory.

I hope that helps. Maybe not. Maybe I'll get crucified and people will point out what I've already said. Girls are sorted against when it comes to sports. If you want to call that discrimination, go ahead, but then you need to be consistent and say it is discriminatory against many guys. Further, as Guinastasia pointed out, you'll also need to acknowledge it is discriminatory against many girls when women's only leagues are formed.

Drunky Smurf -
I don't know if that answers your question or not.
I'm afraid I'm repeating myself but I'll try. If we did nothing to separate out the genetically gifted from the rest we would have nothing but genetically gifted playing sports. We should try to find ways to allow others to get to play. People looked around and noticed girls were excluded and decided it was imperative they get to play. While I think it is fantastic we can find ways to easily let them play, I think people who defend the forced formation of leagues for girls by saying it is critical for their well being and society in general are either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring the huge numbers of others who don't get that same opportunity and never could have that same opportunity. Some have claimed that with the formation of men's and women's leagues there are no longer any people for whom that opportunity is an impossibility. They seem to feel any man, if they train hard enough, could compete against the top male athletes. Similarly, I presume, for women.

My point...society and people in general are not significantly damaged by excluding people from playing sports at the highest levels. If it were, we are in trouble because there are far, far more among us who can never get to that level, male or female, then there are those that can.
But we're not talking about "at the highest levels". If there are no leagues that only allow women, those leagues will be dominated by men. The women's 800m WORLD record holder would be hard pressed to beat a 16 year old boy from Iowa. For the 5k? You need to go all the way to 18 years old. Same for sprinters. And a majority of these athletes probably won't even receive a full ride scholarship to a D1 school.

How do you get girls and women to even pretend to want to do something en masse if they'll never even get the chance? And how should society treat the whinging of those who fall back on "poor genetics" as an excuse when there are literally THOUSANDS of leagues across the nation that will accept ANYONE to play a sport they enjoy?
  #96  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:55 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
In the case of the OP, the strength of the argument to justify denying that boy access to a varsity sport depends on your view. If you feel it is important to keep leagues where access to varsity sports is available to those not at the top of the distribution curve, great, deny him access. If you feel it is absolutely critical that more people in society be allowed to play sports because they would be harmed if we didn't, then you need to let him play because otherwise he is being harmed. If you don't care if a boy is being harmed but you care that girls are, how do you justify that?

I really cannot make this any clearer. Creating women's only leagues is a good idea and I'm 100% in favor of it. If we didn't, women would be locked out of sports. I simply think it is misguided to justify the creation of these leagues because it is harmful in some way if we don't. If that were truly the case, we are still harming a lot of people and those advocating that it is imperative for women to have these opportunities needs to explain why it isn't imperative for the other genetically disadvantaged among us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
But we're not talking about "at the highest levels". If there are no leagues that only allow women, those leagues will be dominated by men. The women's 800m WORLD record holder would be hard pressed to beat a 16 year old boy from Iowa. For the 5k? You need to go all the way to 18 years old. Same for sprinters. And a majority of these athletes probably won't even receive a full ride scholarship to a D1 school.
We are talking about the "highest levels" at the respective age groups. Varsity sports for high school, inter collegiate teams for college. At those levels, the number of men that can qualify for any significant playtime is small, and it only gets smaller as you get higher up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
How do you get girls and women to even pretend to want to do something en masse if they'll never even get the chance?
How do we get men who fully realize they have no hope of making these top teams to do something? The short answer, for men, is that we tell them "tough luck" and don't try to get them to do something. We offer what we offer and for those with no chance we simply shrug and say there is only so much we can do. That seems to be okay to tell the majority of boys. Society isn't collapsing and life goes on so the argument that there is great detriment if we don't give genetically disadvantaged people access is specious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
And how should society treat the whinging of those who fall back on "poor genetics" as an excuse when there are literally THOUSANDS of leagues across the nation that will accept ANYONE to play a sport they enjoy?
You ignore them. You offer what you offer and call it good. You can't possibly separate out the ones with borderline genetics from those that simply don't want to work hard enough.

Forget for a minute that gender even exists. When it comes to sports women would be part of the distribution of athletic abilities people have. They are at the tail end of that distribution. Only the top end of that distribution is allowed to play in the varsity and inter-collegiate, highly organized leagues. They get the best fields, training, stadiums and experiences. For everyone else, there are those thousands of leagues across the nation that will accept anyone to play a sport they enjoy. So, except for those top tier percentage people, the rest of the distribution gets exactly what you are advocating is available to everyone. That includes A LOT of men.

In this genderless distribution people realize it would be awesome if we could find ways to let more than just the top percenters have opportunities for higher level sports. But how do you do that without it just meaning you are opening it up to just the next level down in the distribution curve? Fortunately, there is a clear, easy, obvious way we can do that because gender does exist. So we use that. Lots of good comes of that and it allows many an opportunity they wouldn't otherwise have.

Somewhere in that distribution curve we took a select few and allowed them to play sports. But there are still a ton of people in that curve that never will and never can have those experiences and opportunities. Some are men, some are women. Society is just fine. We aren't ringing our hands and clutching our pearls because this specific type of genetically disadvantaged people aren't getting an opportunity to play varsity/inter-collegiate sports. We gave one type of genetically disadvantaged people an opportunity, which, again, I truly support. For the rest of us, we'll just have to play in our rec leagues and club teams.
  #97  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:54 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,780
So rather than hijack this thread to hell and back, why didn't you just say this from the outset?

Or do you like playing games?
  #98  
Old 07-18-2019, 02:05 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,471
[Moderating]

Quote:
I really cannot make this any clearer. Creating women's only leagues is a good idea and I'm 100% in favor of it.
Then why have you spent the entire thread arguing against it? Given that you've apparently been arguing in bad faith all this time, I'm officially directing you to not post any more in this thread. And in case it's not clear, this is not a conditional directive.
  #99  
Old 07-18-2019, 02:08 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So rather than hijack this thread to hell and back, why didn't you just say this from the outset?

Or do you like playing games?
Sorry, never intended it to be a game. I view my first two paragraphs in the previous response to be really similar to the original post I made which is on track and on topic. As a matter of fact, for a hijack, I did a piss poor job because as you can see I've tied my entire arguments back to the topic of the OP.

I can't argue with you if you feel I hijacked this. You are entitled to your view and it would be pointless to argue that.

And with that, I must move along. I can try to answer any further questions or thoughts at some other time, but I'm leaving for the weekend and won't have access for a while.
  #100  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:53 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,471
[Moderating again]

I'm going to assume that you posted that before you saw my post, and so will not penalize you, this time.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017