No more men’s and women’s league, no more “gender eligibility” requirements, a common dresscode, same standards and rules for all.
Edit: since it looks like people missing the word let: the suggestion isn’t to force desegregation. It’s to allow it or even make it the default. Someone else made a good suggestion: segregate by attributes specific to the sport. In boxing it’s weight class, in basketball it could be height, in biking it could even be doped and non doped. Sex and gender need not be the very first thing to segregate by.
Most professional sports in the United States don’t have any policies against women being in the sport. NBA, Football, Baseball, Hockey, etc.
None of them exclude women from playing in the professional leagues. Baseball did briefly in the middle of the 1900s, but that policy was reversed
It’s just that, for these sports, the best women in the game have not yet been better than the worst men in the game. A woman and a man of equal height and weight are still not generally physically equal. Muscle composition and growth, bone structure, etc. mean that on average, women are less strong and less explosive than men, and most popular sports emphasize those attributes.
WNBA teams would often scrimmage against male pick-up basketball players for practice, and they would also often lose. These were just random guys in the area, many of whom didn’t even play often.
The US Women’s National Team played against FC Dallas’s under-15 boys squad and lost 5-2. That USWNT went on to win the Olympics and the women’s World Cup. The Australian women’s team lost to U15 boys 3-0 and again to another U15 boys team 7-0; Arsenal’s woman’s team lost 5-0 to a U15 boys club; the professional squad Athletic Feminino in Spain lost to a U16 boys squad 6-0; and there are many, many more examples.
There is some research on evolutionary theory specifically about the vast differences in upper-body strength: “But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males’ average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females’, with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman. Such a distinction between genders, Carrier says, develops with time and with purpose.”
There are very few sports where this would be feasible, and most if not all those sports are not well-watched and make very little money: shooting, archery, ultra-marathons come first to mind.
To be fair, about that women’s world cup team, if i recall correctly it was a PR move to play an exhibition match with those kids and they were not trying very hard to win. I don’t think they would truly lose to U-15 if it was, for example, a tournament.
Your overall point has merit but i think that specific example gets overused a bit.
It was hardly a “PR move,” they didn’t publicize it, and it didn’t really get traction until Carli Lloyd “admitted” it on Twitter. I’m sure they were taking it a little easy though. That being said, the Australian women’s team lost to U15 boys 3-0 and again to another U15 boys team 7-0; Arsenal’s woman’s team lost 5-0 to a U15 boys club; the professional squad Athletic Feminino in Spain lost to a U16 boys squad 6-0; and there are many, many more examples.
I actually watch more women’s soccer than men’s, so I’m not denigrating the game or quality of play, but I think you’d agree the above represents a pretty clear trend.
Muscle and bone density is a big differentiator. When I was younger I dated some women who looked very strong. Like, their legs were three times thicker than mine. Yet when it came to actual strength, their legs were a tenth as strong as mine. It was actually kind of shocking how much stronger my legs were than theirs, considering the visual differences. It wasn’t until later in life that I learned about the muscle density differences between men and women, and then it made sense. My legs felt like slabs of iron when you touched them. Their legs, despite looking outstanding, still felt fairly soft. That’s because of the differences in muscle density between biological males and females.
deleted by creator
Someone sharper than I am came up with the suggestion of categorising people in a similar way to how it’s done by disability in the Paralympics. As to what those categories should be and whether it’s practical, let alone possible is another thing entirely.
Basically turn the “categorisation by disability” on its head and make it “categorisation by ability”.
Would you have a link to that? It sounds like an interesting concept.
https://www.paralympic.org/athletics/classification for para-athletes on their own.
As for the all-inclusive idea, I forget where I came across it. Maybe it was a Reddit comment back when I still went there. All I know is that it hadn’t occurred to me as an idea and seemed like an idea that better qualified people would be able to flesh out. Or provide reasons it wouldn’t work.
This post was clearly not made by a woman
Why? You think women are incapable of posing such questions?
Nope, but as with so many discussions of this nature, this question misses the nuance of why women’s sports exist.
Even Serena Williams said she couldn’t compete against a similarly ranked man. If you want to combine, women would just not be able to compete at that level
I feel like some function of actual measurements of say hormone levels over a given training period and lifetime would be a better classification systen over pure sex class system.
Most of the time it would result in the same divisions tbh, but outliers would be better accommodated and we get the added bonus of further breaking down gender roles.
I think you are asking what women’s sports are for? It’s a reasonable question. I think of it like age grouping, it puts competitors together into groups where they are competitive.
For school sports, sure. Mixed teams and less focus on winning, more on playing.
But if you are trying to determine who is best in a particular category? So like Ironman triathlon, everyone runs together, they start pro men then pro women then age groups, technically if my time was fastest I win, but if my time is fastest among women my age, that is also a win. A pro woman would win if she beat all the female participants, and in the off chance all the top men ran off a cliff or got sick halfway through, the top man would also win in his class even if he didn’t beat top woman.
Personally I love the way gymnastics handles it. Men compete in events no woman could beat them in (rings! Oh my God!) and women compete different feats of athleticism and precision geared to their bodies, the strength to weight ratio not pure power.
Could you explain more about the gymnastics thing? Because I’ve often wondered why women can’t compete in things like the parallel bars or the rings.
Like isn’t there anyone who wants to do it even if they wouldn’t be competitive with a man?
Women do sometimes train rings just for strength, and the single bar for fun, but no, this really is one of those events where simply having a male body gives a ridiculous advantage, it’s designed to show off what a top level male-bodied body can do with training.
Floor exercise, and vault, are the overlap events and the competitors do a lot of the same skills, but the men do lead the way here on tricks - it’s funny though. The first double backflip, in my lifetime it went from being considered impossible to being something coaches train 8-9 year old girls to do! So I don’t know how much of the limitation is physical but I do know that the center of balance in a super fit woman is different from the center of balance in a super fit man, and that rings and Pommel horse are designed to exploit this difference.
I know that women can stand up from a wall squat without pushing off the wall first, are there other athletic pursuits that are more geared towards women’s abilities?
Also thanks for your in depth explanation, that makes a lot of sense why mostly men would practice for those disciplines.
Eh I’m so for just stopping sports. It at least spending all that wasted money on something meaningful, like feeding hungry people.
Firstly, most sports have an open league and a women’s league. Women can play in the “men’s” leagues if they are able. Secondly there is an olympic.sport where men and women compete against each other, dressage.
- Which sports have an open league?
- Well observed. Why not more sports?
Women can play in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB
To your point, Manon Rheaume played a pre season game with the Tampa Bay Lightning in the early 90s.
Venus and Serena got their asses handed to them in their prime by the ranked 203 male tennis player.
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
The women’s US National team lost to a regional U15 boys team.
Physiology, males are bigger, faster, and stronger. It is not fair to women to put them in the same contest as males in any sport that requires those 3 things puts women at a massive disadvantage and would lead to fewer opportunities for female athletes to succeed.
Depends on how it’s organized. In a open team, it would definitely suck. In one of my sports, Ultimate, coed divisions or leagues are pretty popular. Generally the gender ratio is 4-3 with the offensive team deciding to play 3 or 4 women for that point.
Ultimate is under appreciated
No, men and women are not physically equal.
Why does that matter? Men also have divisions and leagues. Team in the top leagues will destroy the leagues at the bottom.
why does it matter?
Should we stop splitting sports by gender?
It’s inherently boring to watch sports competitions between unequally capable people, and there is a natural difference in that that can be clearly attributed to gender.
I admire your thought of equality but we need to talk about the differences in physique in genders as well if we wanna discuss this.
Don’t dismiss this claim, scientifically debunk it or share why not and how you come to this conclusion.
No, it’s not attributed to gender. It is attributed to sex. Sorry to be pedantic but we live in a world where that distinction is very important for education purposes.
Of course people are differently capable, that why we have divisions, leagues, weight classes, and so on, even in the same sex. Why would that change when they all compete together?
“Hey! Do you want to watch division 7 soccer? They have a woman on the team!”
Hardly inspirational to girls everywhere. Whereas whenever I’ve caught the Canadian women’s soccer team, it’s usually at a pretty full arena with lots of girls teams there stoked to watch. I would never take that away from them.
Why do you assume they’ll be in the 7th division? And do you assume it will be the case for all sports?
Which sports do you watch both men and women play?
Soccer is the one I do most frequently. My local men’s MLS team would walk through the Canadian women’s team. The men can just kick it much farther and harder, run faster, take dangerous shots from farther out and that’s not to mention the physicality. And the Canadian women’s team is one of the top 10 or so in the world. (And MLS is several steps down from any of the serious leagues from which most national men’s teams are drawn.)
Not even going to look at a more physical sport like hockey.
I already posted comparing men and women’s times at the Olympics, but to reiterate, the gold winning woman came in slower than the bare minimum men’s time to qualify to run at the Olympics, in the 10k race, literally every one of the racers beat the women’s world record… (stats you saw but conveniently did not respond to.)
Does that answer your question?
Does that answer your question?
No, it doesn’t answer if it’ll be the same for all sports. As others have pointed out archery, shooting, curling, and other sports have men an women competing either separate or together and women can compete at the same level.
As for football, yes, there’s a good chance there’ll be stark differences, but as I pointed out in another comment, not every sport is about raw strength. And, competing against stronger opponents can also raise your ceiling. How far is of course yet to be seen because we don’t have mixed leagues.
And again, the suggestion isn’t “NO MORE SEGREGATION EVER” it’s “should we let them compete against each other”. That means there’ll be a mixed and segregated league. Maybe even, as somebody else suggested, the segregations wouldn’t always be immediately by sex or gender, but by attributes that make sense in that sport e.g weight, muscle mass, height, skill, and so on.
deleted by creator
Because putting them together in most physical sports would push women out of the highest echelons of that sport. Just look up what female MMA fighters and female tennis players have to say. They literally can’t keep up with men. Serena Williams and her sister boasted that they’d beat any man outside the top 200, Braasch (then #203) took the challenge and on the day of the challenge played a round of golf drank 2 low ABV beers before easily beating both sisters
Probably the most detrimental thing you can do for women in sports is to get rid of the women’s league. Most “men’s” categories are already open for women, so you should ask women why they don’t want to partake. The answer is what female athletes already say, they’d get absolutely dumpstered before they even get close to the top. Of course the less physically demanding the closer men and women will be, but for most sports the physical differences make women’s leagues necessary.
Men and men aren’t physically equal. Maybe basketball should have a rule that everyone in the team has to be the same height. Can’t have anyone with a physical advantage over anyone else.
What do you think would happen if the best NBA team played the best WNBA team? I think the men would win.
What do you think would happen if professional basketball was mixed? I’d imagine the teams would be 90% men.
Also, if track and field records are any indication, men are strong and faster. Separate divisions are more fair.
No.
Care to expand?
It would make most sports incredibly boring to watch, as well as frustrating for many athletes. Boring sport means less money, which would also mean less teams overall.
Why would it be boring?
I have, in other comments and the description of the thread too. Anything specific you would like to know?
Yes
I’m all for removing gender as the first dividing line, but there needs to be some divisions in place.
As an example, in martial sports they are often separated by weight class to balance the fact that a larger, heavier person would have an advantage over a smaller, lighter person.
Without that, basketball would be dominated by the tallest people only, but that means there is no reason for anyone who isn’t tall to even play the game. Break it into height classes and suddenly you meet have a league of skilled, average height players that could be very compelling to watch.
Height classes in basket ball. Hadn’t thought of that. I would suggest that it be optional though, so that people who don’t want to be excluded because of their height get to compete in the “common” league.
Height classes for basketball actually sounds really cool. It’d be interesting to see the different strategies that come into play when people physically can’t reach the ring for example. Or at least I assume it would, I know nothing about basketball but it sounds like it’d be pretty interesting.
As the shortest person in most Basketball games during my childhood, I would have loved this so much! I enjoyed the game very much, but I always had to work twice as hard as my taller friends.
Yes, let’s have a bunch of blokes beating the shit out of women in boxing. What could possibly go wrong?
I remember the Brit Awards scrapping gendered awards and putting everyone in the same category. The problem was, the only ones nominated turned out to all be men.
Combat sports already have weight classes, it’s not like you’d be putting a man up against a woman he has 30 cm and 50 kg over. If you’ve got people of similar size and ability, it doesn’t seem to me like their sex or gender matters. They all went in there expecting to both hit and get hit.
, it doesn’t seem to me like their sex or gender matters
Oh, but it does. There are major physical differences between men and women, even if they’re the same weight. Men have greater muscle & bone density. A man of similar physical fitness of the same weight as a woman will be considerably stronger. There wouldn’t even be a competition. It would just be a man beating the shit out of a woman. Nobody wants to see that, despite our desires for equality.
So if a woman was in the same weight class as Mike Tyson, you think they should be allowed to fight each other? And you think this would be a good look?
These hamfisted attempts at equality are actually the complete opposite.
Is it a worse look than what Tyson did to any of his real opponents because of the history of male violence against women, or is there something else you’re getting at? And is whether or not it looks good what should be the driving force being decision making in sports?
First of all, heavy weight men =/= heavy weight women at the moment. The kg’s aren’t the same (men start at 90kg and women 80kg or something?). Second, Mike Tyson beat the shit out of fellow men. Are you going to set the bar for being a man at Mike Tyson? Every guy he beat was actually a woman?
I can’t find how much Mike Tyson weighed for every of his fights. This says 99kgs. The heaviest woman I could find (why doesn’t a DB exist to sort by kgs?) is Danielle Perkins at 88kg. That’s 10kg of difference. No way they’re even in the same class unless you leave it open ended. The weight classes would probably have to be redistributed and a new one added. Once a woman gets as heavy as Mike, she could compete against him.
Shouldn’t sports have categories based on abilities? I see people be like “trans women are stronger than cis women cause, idk, testosterone or something” and I just think, y’know, if that’s a problem, why aren’t categories based on strength or abilities or whatever?
A heavyweight boxer isn’t the same for both sexes. If you mean coupling heavyweight against featherweight of the other gender or something similar to compensate, it could work but would probably be seen as unfair, it would be hard to draw the line on where it’s equivalent.
I do think it would be interesting to have mixed team sports where a certain number of each gender needs to be on each side, but it would probably end up with positions always being relegated to the same sex.
The definitions aren’t the same, but that can be fixed: heavyweight = over 90kg, whichever gender (right now it’s 91kg for men and 79 kg for women). They’d compete against each other in the same weight class by actual weight, not name of class.
You could then have multiple scenarios:
- few women in heavyweight
- no women in heavyweight
- women within the top of 70-75kg (for example)
- no women within the top 70-75kg (for example)
But we won’t know until we try.
The problem is that a man in the same weight class as a women would still wipe the floor with them.
I doubt even a heavy weight women against a featherweight man would be fair. Every category would be dominated by men.
The only sport that is a predominantly physical exercise (so excluding things like snooker, darts, archery etc) where women could compete competitively against men at an equivilent level in their sport (league 1 men vs league 1 women) would be ultra marathons. Most other sports is so mis-matched you’d end up with some random amateur bloke against an elite woman.
Basically if you’ve gone through male puberty you are vastly different physically from someone who hasn’t.
