Lol. Well over 700 college men ran under the women’s 800 meter world record this year. If you combined the divisions there wouldn’t be a single woman in the Olympics or world championships. Not just track and field but most every sport.
This argument is so stupid. Why would a rich country like the US ever bother doping women if all you have to do is spend a few extra hundred million to build a training centre for women? You wouldn’t even have to close the gap completely on men: a woman who could run a 4 minute mile would crush and dominate. If you could shave even 1/3 of the time gap off women’s times just by “prioritizing women’s training” then you could sweep every medal in every women’s event. Who wouldn’t do that? You’d immediately have the most medals of every country just by throwing money/coaches/facilities at women’s sports. It’s idiotic to think countries are just letting women leave 10% of performance across the board in all sports when they could be performing the same as men with a little more investment. And why wouldn’t rich champion female athletes spend their own money, equal men, and dominate other women? Serena, Allyson Felix, Simone Biles etc would just have to pay for better coaching and facilities with the money they already have and they should easily close the gap, right?
Men arebetter at math and science too. Colleges and employers are taking the same approach as in athketics by admitting lower performing women and hiring lower performing women.
This is like saying “scientists can’t clearly define or describe what intelligence is: it’s a complex combination of factors influenced by the social environment. Therefore, there’s no evidence that a brain dead person couldn’t be a Nobel prize winning physicist with a few more resources donated to ending stigma against disabilities.” It’s a classic logical fallacy. That’s the same thing she’s doing here. Yes, sports performance is a complex mix of biological talent and social and mental factors. Yes, the most talented person doesn’t always win. Yes, mental performance is a thing. Yes, sometimes a less talented athlete develops into a better athlete than one ahead of them over time. No, that doesn’t mean biology has nothing to do with sports and women are actually better linebackers than dudes.
"and though sex differences in sports show advantages for men, researchers today still don’t know how much of this to attribute to biological difference versus the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential."
You know, there's a lot of truth in this, but it's not an argument for getting rid of girls' sports - quite the opposite. First of all, biological advantages in sport for me are indisputable. Exactly how large the advantage is is immaterial; we all know it's significant. However, this doesn't necessarily mean sports need to be separated by gender for little kids. However, based on experience both as both a child female athlete and as a mother of three daughters in sports, I think it's tremendously important to separate sports by gender, particularly in team sports.
Personally, I played on a mixed soccer team in 2nd and 3rd grades. My coach typically played me half the game while the athletic boys played the whole game. The best kids on the team were all boys but one. Without my parents support, I'm sure I would have given it up. In fourth grade, they formed a girls' team, and all of a sudden, I wasn't the one of the worst 2 or 3 kids on the team anymore (all girls). Instead, I was kind of average. I started to have fun and my coach noticed and supported me. I ended up playing and enjoying soccer for years and becoming a decent player.
When my daughter started playing soccer in first grade, they did this giant soccer practice on the weekend with at least a hundred kids. They divided them in groups, mostly divided by gender, but not entirely. In my daughter's group it was maybe 10 girls and 2 boys. The 2 boys completely and entirely dominated the play to an astonishing extent - and this was FIRST grade! It was incredible and ridiculous. My daughter, not the greatest athlete, never got to touch the ball. The following year, they did divide by gender and it was night and day - such a better experience.
Some girls will thrive when playing with boys. My sister, for example, is an extraordinary athlete and did just fine playing with boys. But these girls are very much the exception to the rule.
I do think the dominancy of boys is cultural. Boys' parents treat them differently. I live in an urban area with lots of international parents who value soccer very highly. The kids grow up watching men play soccer on their TV screens and Dad wants their son to play for Arsenal or whatever. Maybe boys also have some kind of innate preference for ball sports? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter *why*. What matters is that girls get to play when boys and girls have their own space. And when girls get to play and excel, many will thrive in the sport.
Frankly, I saw this article and it pissed me off. No the solution to the transgender problem is not to just eliminate girls' sports.
. The 1,000th best male player in any sport is still better than the best female player in the same sport.
Then why was Paula Radcliffe the fastest marathoner in the UK [ or at least England] for the year when she ran her 2:15??
[Obviously this was an extreme outlier, but... pretty darn impressive, eh?]
Yet her 2:15:25 was still nearly 10 minutes behind Khalid Khannouchi’s then-world record of 2:05:38. In the overall results of the 2003 London Marathon where she ran that time, she was only 16th. That’s still impressive, but there’s no trophy, prize money, podium, ceremony, flowers, or photo ops for those who finish 16th. Is that what those people advocating to stop separating sexes in competition want?
Some context for anyone taking this publication seriously: The Atlantic is a propaganda tool of a ostensibly communist/fascist political NGO (or perhaps they call it a ‘think tank’) called The Emerson Collective. Its editor seems to be an impressive ultra runner. Still, he is nothing more than a lap dog for Lauren Powell Jobs (or whoever she works for), whose late husband must be rolling in his grave.
I would like to add that in humans, like all mammals, sex is binary.
A human either produces sperm or eggs. There is no "sliding scale" between sperm and eggs.
A human who produces sperm is a biological male.
Only humans who produce eggs can compete in the biological female category.
This is a high-school-bio level of understanding and is incorrect. Sex in humans is bimodal, so the vast majority of people fall into one of two categories. There are however outliers with mixes of characteristics between male and female - that's what intersex is. Sperm and eggs are also not what determines if someone is male or female. Plenty of people produce neither, either naturally from birth or as a result of a vasectomy or after menopause. That's a bad definition.
That said, we should obviously still separate sports by sex, but determining who belongs in which category is not nearly as clear as you think it is.
Then why was Paula Radcliffe the fastest marathoner in the UK [ or at least England] for the year when she ran her 2:15??
[Obviously this was an extreme outlier, but... pretty darn impressive, eh?]
Yet her 2:15:25 was still nearly 10 minutes behind Khalid Khannouchi’s then-world record of 2:05:38. In the overall results of the 2003 London Marathon where she ran that time, she was only 16th. That’s still impressive, but there’s no trophy, prize money, podium, ceremony, flowers, or photo ops for those who finish 16th. Is that what those people advocating to stop separating sexes in competition want?
Yes I know all that and I was not really trying to make the case that a woman can be competitive with a man at the very very top of the elite level.
However he said 1,000th best male is better than the best female. Simply Not always true. In a country with a long history of great distance running she was number one performer in that event for that year, faster than all the men! I don't think for one second one can just diminish that.
And even if you are counting the entire world she was 305 on the yearly performer list.
So.... he was exaggerating. Just being a stickler for accuracy.
Then why was Paula Radcliffe the fastest marathoner in the UK [ or at least England] for the year when she ran her 2:15??
[Obviously this was an extreme outlier, but... pretty darn impressive, eh?]
You mean a woman’s world record that over 5000 men have run faster than?
Only 300 were better than the time for that year. Don't try to change the perameters to all time performances when we now have super shoes and the Woman's World Record is a lot faster than Paula's time also.
Men are faster, duh. I am not even a particular Paula fan but just simply pointing out a truly phenomenal outlier performance.
In the future, due to application of non binary,fair and equitable principles, there will be 279 heats of each event, based on various hormonal, physical and psychosocial parameters.
The exception will be the Pankration, where all genders will melee until only one champion emerges.
Next thing you know, they'll be saying that upperclassmen have no advantage over freshmen, and that freshmen should be allowed to compete alongside them.
"And though sex differences in sports show advantages for men, researchers today still don’t know how much of this to attribute to biological difference versus the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential."
Yet her 2:15:25 was still nearly 10 minutes behind Khalid Khannouchi’s then-world record of 2:05:38. In the overall results of the 2003 London Marathon where she ran that time, she was only 16th. That’s still impressive, but there’s no trophy, prize money, podium, ceremony, flowers, or photo ops for those who finish 16th. Is that what those people advocating to stop separating sexes in competition want?
Yes I know all that and I was not really trying to make the case that a woman can be competitive with a man at the very very top of the elite level.
However he said 1,000th best male is better than the best female. Simply Not always true. In a country with a long history of great distance running she was number one performer in that event for that year, faster than all the men! I don't think for one second one can just diminish that.
And even if you are counting the entire world she was 305 on the yearly performer list.
So.... he was exaggerating. Just being a stickler for accuracy.
I agree, accuracy is important. As for Paula having the best time in her country in 2003, that says just as much about the lousy performances of their men that year as it does about the outstanding performance of Paula.
"and though sex differences in sports show advantages for men, researchers today still don’t know how much of this to attribute to biological difference versus the lack of support provided to women athletes to reach their highest potential."
You know, there's a lot of truth in this, but it's not an argument for getting rid of girls' sports - quite the opposite. First of all, biological advantages in sport for me are indisputable. Exactly how large the advantage is is immaterial; we all know it's significant. However, this doesn't necessarily mean sports need to be separated by gender for little kids. However, based on experience both as both a child female athlete and as a mother of three daughters in sports, I think it's tremendously important to separate sports by gender, particularly in team sports.
Personally, I played on a mixed soccer team in 2nd and 3rd grades. My coach typically played me half the game while the athletic boys played the whole game. The best kids on the team were all boys but one. Without my parents support, I'm sure I would have given it up. In fourth grade, they formed a girls' team, and all of a sudden, I wasn't the one of the worst 2 or 3 kids on the team anymore (all girls). Instead, I was kind of average. I started to have fun and my coach noticed and supported me. I ended up playing and enjoying soccer for years and becoming a decent player.
When my daughter started playing soccer in first grade, they did this giant soccer practice on the weekend with at least a hundred kids. They divided them in groups, mostly divided by gender, but not entirely. In my daughter's group it was maybe 10 girls and 2 boys. The 2 boys completely and entirely dominated the play to an astonishing extent - and this was FIRST grade! It was incredible and ridiculous. My daughter, not the greatest athlete, never got to touch the ball. The following year, they did divide by gender and it was night and day - such a better experience.
Some girls will thrive when playing with boys. My sister, for example, is an extraordinary athlete and did just fine playing with boys. But these girls are very much the exception to the rule.
I do think the dominancy of boys is cultural. Boys' parents treat them differently. I live in an urban area with lots of international parents who value soccer very highly. The kids grow up watching men play soccer on their TV screens and Dad wants their son to play for Arsenal or whatever. Maybe boys also have some kind of innate preference for ball sports? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter *why*. What matters is that girls get to play when boys and girls have their own space. And when girls get to play and excel, many will thrive in the sport.
R U familar with puberty?
On the basis of athleticism alone, girls can compete with boys.
I would like to add that in humans, like all mammals, sex is binary.
A human either produces sperm or eggs. There is no "sliding scale" between sperm and eggs.
A human who produces sperm is a biological male.
Only humans who produce eggs can compete in the biological female category.
This is a high-school-bio level of understanding and is incorrect. Sex in humans is bimodal, so the vast majority of people fall into one of two categories. There are however outliers with mixes of characteristics between male and female - that's what intersex is. Sperm and eggs are also not what determines if someone is male or female. Plenty of people produce neither, either naturally from birth or as a result of a vasectomy or after menopause. That's a bad definition.
That said, we should obviously still separate sports by sex, but determining who belongs in which category is not nearly as clear as you think it is.
One in 6000 persons have a discrepancy between genotype and phenotype, or cannot be classified by phenotype. We call them intersex. "True hermaphroditism", people who have testicular AND ovarian tissue, is very rare.
Let's look at Caster Semenya. She has (internal) testes and produces sperm. She is clearly a biological male. Like most biological males, she is attracted to women.
You are not very well educated on the subject. Sperm is still produced after a vasectomy, it just can't get out. And status post vasectomy or menopause is beside the point, these people have produced sperm or eggs so they clearly fall in one category.