Women's Cycling Champion is a Man

[Dave Rogers]

The current segregation in sports has its roots in the inherent differences between men and women, not in some Victorian social theory.

Again, I'm far from sure that's true; segregation by gender in sports has been continuous over that entire period, and there doesn't seem to me to have been a point in time where the justification was explicitly changed from social exclusion to fair competition. If we're talking about the roots of segregation, it seems to me that's a question about the history of it, and that's where it started, even though it's gradually progressed to a justification of fairness. As with everything, different sports seem to be at different stages of evolution from one to the other, with track and field athletics at one extreme offering near-parity in the types of events contested by women, and road cycling possibly at the other, with relatively few and typically much shorter races for women, attracting much less prestige and sponsorship.

Dave

 

[qayak]

Okay let's go even further down the rabbit hole. Why are all the major, organized Chess championships segregated by gender, and in some cases age?

Hell you might as well give chess weight classes for all the sense that makes.

There could be a ton of reasons why but it would take some research to figure out which ones are the cause. But if each reason only bled off a few female participants there would be very few females involved in the end.

For instance, women in general may not be drawn to the game of chess in the same numbers men are, women in general are not drawn to highly competitive activities the way men are, etc.

Perhaps organisers realised they could get more women by offering them their own category. If the desire was simply to keep numbers up then the aim was achieved. The game and the tournament doesn't even have to be different, the female participants just have to perceive them as being different. Simply having a "female" division maybe enough.

I noticed in high school sports there was a difference between how females perceived sports competition. When I played basketball we often travelled to the same tournaments as the girls in small towns around BC and we would watch their games when we were not playing. It was very strange to us males that the girls would cheer when the other team made a good play, or stop and see of one of their opponents were okay if they fell or were knocked down. We certainly didn't do that. We played more like what you saw on TV with the NBA at the time. Fists and elbows flying.

Something else is opportunity. In those basketball games at my first high school we often got our butts handed to us and the girls often were run away winners. What it came down to was our school insisted girls and boys share gym time relatively evenly whereas other schools had the boys getting all the good time slots in the gym and the girls picking up whatever was left. Just balanced gym time made our girls more competitive and yet it happened so seldom back then.

Even now I play hockey 3 nights a week and many of the players are angry because a few years back we had to give up our prime time slots so new women's teams could take them. They felt that they had spent a lot of years playing and got those good slots through attrition and that the women should have to put in the same amount of time to be entitled to those spots. My view is the same as it was in high school: Women should get an equal shot at time slots simply because they want to play the sport.

 

[theprestige]

Archery is very much a muscle sport. I don't know about shooting.

If everyone is using bows with the same pull, wouldn't that replace the man's muscular advantage with excess and irrelevant muscle?

An 80-pound bow (or whatever) throws an arrow the same distance regardless of who pulls it, yes?

 

[Belz...]

Again, I'm far from sure that's true; segregation by gender in sports has been continuous over that entire period, and there doesn't seem to me to have been a point in time where the justification was explicitly changed from social exclusion to fair competition.

Is it possible that the latter justification was actually always there, and when the former one was removed it didn't change dick?

 

[Belz...]

For instance, women in general may not be drawn to the game of chess in the same numbers men are, women in general are not drawn to highly competitive activities the way men are, etc.

[...]

I noticed in high school sports there was a difference between how females perceived sports competition. When I played basketball we often travelled to the same tournaments as the girls in small towns around BC and we would watch their games when we were not playing. It was very strange to us males that the girls would cheer when the other team made a good play, or stop and see of one of their opponents were okay if they fell or were knocked down. We certainly didn't do that. We played more like what you saw on TV with the NBA at the time. Fists and elbows flying.

Good points.

 

[qayak]

If everyone is using bows with the same pull, wouldn't that replace the man's muscular advantage with excess and irrelevant muscle?

An 80-pound bow (or whatever) throws an arrow the same distance regardless of who pulls it, yes?

The strength required to draw the bow and hold it steady while drawn would give males an advantage.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is it possible that the later justification was actually always there, and when the former one was removed it didn't change dick?

Maybe the latter was always there, but "it didn't change dick" isn't borne out by events. Look at track and field for an example; as someone mentioned upthread, women were believed incapable of running the same distances as men, and races longer than 800 metres didn't enter the women's Olympics until 1972. It's hard to claim that the complete exclusion of women from top level distance running was in order to allow them to compete fairly, or that nothing has changed as a result of fairness becoming the justification.

Dave

 

[Meadmaker]

If everyone is using bows with the same pull, wouldn't that replace the man's muscular advantage with excess and irrelevant muscle?

An 80-pound bow (or whatever) throws an arrow the same distance regardless of who pulls it, yes?

They aren't using the same pull weight. Higher weights give an advantage.

 

[Belz...]

It's hard to claim that the complete exclusion of women from top level distance running was in order to allow them to compete fairly

Yeah, if that were a claim anyone had made, it'd be hard to support it, I agree.

 

[Darat]

The ,"harshness" is the responsibility of the responders, but the response itself was unresponsive.


The current segregation in sports has its roots in the inherent differences between men and women, not in some Victorian social theory.

Yet the facts show otherwise or do you believe that football is ‘quite unsuitable for females’?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yet the facts show otherwise or do you believe that football is ‘quite unsuitable for females’?

I'm saying that putting the 5 foot 8, 138 pound Katie Hnida, an utterly spectacular female American football player who is an amazing athlete and should be rightly proud of her accomplishments, including notable accomplishments in intergender competition, on the field with 300 to 400+ pound monsters like Refrigerator Perry or Aaron Gibson or Terrell Brown would still be a bad idea . Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yet the facts show otherwise or do you believe that football is ‘quite unsuitable for females’?

The question is irrelevant to any topic I find interesting. It certainly is not relevant to why, in today's world, there are separate leagues for men and women.

But I think it is perfectly suitable for females, and I am glad that female only leagues exist. I think participation in those leagues should be restricted to only allow females.

 

[Darat]

Okay let's go even further down the rabbit hole. Why are all the major, organized Chess championships segregated by gender, and in some cases age?

Hell you might as well give chess weight classes for all the sense that makes.

You seem to have taken yourself down some winding and strange road.

To pull the thread back to the topic - which is the fact that a person who some people consider to be a man and some consider to be a woman competed and won in a gender segregated sporting challenge.

1) I don't think governments really should be involved directly with any kind of governance of sport
2) From that my view is that it is entirely up to the sporting organisations as to who they will allow to participate in their private events. (With a few caveats.)
3) It's going to take some time for all these separate bodies to decide about new regulations etc. caused by trans folk no longer being excluded from public life.
4) It may be that some trans folk will not be able to compete at professional levels or the top tier of sporting challenges as the gender they are, which will be sad for them but it is in the end only sport and many other people for physical reasons can't take part in such event and have to suck it.
5) Lest it be forgot - life is not fair.

 

[Darat]

Okay but statistical breakouts are a different thing then overall demographic data.

Isn't that what top tier sport really about? Finding those top athletes that are outriders in their population whether male or female. It's really a celebration of freaks!

 

[luchog]

I'm saying that putting the 5 foot 8, 138 pound Katie Hnida, an utterly spectacular female American football player who is an amazing athlete and should be rightly proud of her accomplishments, including notable accomplishments in intergender competition, on the field with 300 to 400+ pound monsters like Refrigerator Perry or Aaron Gibson or Terrell Brown would still be a bad idea . Nothing more, nothing less.

Wrong football.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wrong football.

No same football. The divisions (at least the ones that aren't purely organizational) between NFL and NCAA Div 1 are the sort of arbitrary segregation of players of different skill and ability level we're talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Yet the facts show otherwise or do you believe that football is ‘quite unsuitable for females’?

Unsuitable in mixed competitions, yes.

I know, I know. It doesn't suit the narrative that both sexes are precisely identical to one another. But, as you said, the world cannot be reduced to the simplistic level you want it to be.

 

[Meadmaker]

No same football. The divisions (at least the ones that aren't purely organizational) between NFL and NCAA Div 1 are the sort of arbitrary segregation of players of different skill and ability level we're talking about.

The Original question was about soccer.

 

[lomiller]

We still see the result of this discrimination today with female versions of even professional sports being much less popular than the male versions, the prize purses being substantially lower and so on.

False premise. There really isn’t any such thing as “male only sports/leagues” If a women wanted to compete in the more popular higher salary league and was good enough to earn a spot, in most first world democracies it would effectively be impossible to keep her out. Comparing best vs best leagues with best women vs best women leagues isn’t apples to apples.

 

[theprestige]

They aren't using the same pull weight. Higher weights give an advantage.

I know they're not right now, but would an open competition that specified the same pull weight for all competitors be "fair"? Or would the male muscular advantage still close out women from the top levels of such a sport?

Actually, what about shooting competitions? The guns are all identical. What do open shooting competitions look like.

And speaking of shooting competitions, the elephant in the room is military service.