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.
Have you really, honestly gotten to this point in your life not understanding the disadvantages women are up against?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I will say that in my estimation, mostmen can compete at a level that no women can’t. That’s the point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?