kwackers wrote:Cugel wrote:Why do we separate competitions based on gender but not body-type or other genetic conditions and states? Is it fair to allow big muscley blokes to play rugby against skinny wee blokes? Of course it is. Therefore it must be fair to allow skinny wee women to play against both of them. After all, there are many skills and abilities besides brute strength.
Team sports seem to be to be one area where it wouldn't matter if there were female players. If they're good enough then why not offer them a contract? Would it matter if Man Utd fielded a female player? I don't see why it should.
If only the occasional woman made the grade then I don't think that's an issue although I'd question why if they were good enough to compete with pro-males they wouldn't want to be apex athletes in the female ranks.
OTOH, if you made individual track events mixed then from the brief research I've done you wouldn't have had a single woman in the lineup since the year dot and I'm pretty sure nobody actually wants that.
So imo, segregation for *some* sports is here to stay. I don't want to see sports where women can't compete.
I also don't want to see women's sports where the majority of participants are ex-men (and I appreciate how discriminatory that sounds).
At the moment it's not an issue and fingers crossed it'll never become one.
Thinking about it a bit more, I'd be happy with positive discrimination. Allow any male sport to be potentially open to any gender - if a particular woman can rank with the men then why not allow her to participate?
But women only versions of a sport should exclude men to prevent the mediocre athletes chancing their arm...
Many of the less obsessional "there must be winners and losers" sports do in fact have mixed gender events. The results are segregated into "first senior man", first junior woman" etc.. It little matters who was first over the finish line. .... Although there are frequently cases where it's a young woman rather than a middle-aged bloke; or an old bloke rather than a young one.
The problem with sport is the obsession with winners. Why not conduct sport along the old-fashioned lines of: "It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game"?
When I raced a bike 90% of us knew we'd win very rarely if ever. Being a potential winner was not our motivation. Rather it was the taking part and all the joys that brought. If I got a 2nd or a 3rd I was very pleased with myself. I was always happy to finish in the bunch. A race in which I got dropped but finished nevertheless felt like an achievement.
What is sport for? One sometimes feels that the winner-loser type held in front of a horde of non-participants is merely a device for organising then milking those easily herded into a tribe of fans willing to spend loadsamoney just to "belong" to something successful. Stuff that.
I'd rather be a competent participant, however lowly my placings.
Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes