actual answer wrote:
There are two categories here. The first is around how commentators feel about an athlete in regards to attractiveness. You pretty much see these comments on any thread about a woman here. Some guys are just knuckle draggers and this is the only way they see and relate to the world and women. The first thing they think about and feel the need to express is not athletic performance, but if they are personally attracted to the person. It is the lowest level of cognitive development by those with low self awareness.
The second is comments on body composition and how it relates to performance in sport. On one hand it is undeniable that this matters at the elite level in sports such as running. On the other focusing too much in this area can lead to destructive behavior like eating disorders and negative images of self. Sometimes comments are meant to be constructive, but often they are used to just tear the athlete down. Unfortunately, constructive discussions are pretty rare.
This results in articles like this calling for everyone to just stop talking about it.
The author missed the mark because by attempting to conflate pointing out outlier body types with denigrating all parties involved - both the typical and atypical physiques. She insists that this behavior will lead to mental health issues.
I would contend it does that exact opposite. If we highlight physiques that are “out of the norm” in media/press, it shines a light on the fact there is a biodiversity in sport phenotypes.
For example: If there is an article written about Mugsy Bogues, Nate Robinson, Spud Webb, do we think that causes more mental harm to short basketball players or gives them renewed optimism?
If we talk about Chris Solinsky or Alan Webb being built sturdily - does that reinforce the narrative that runners need to be skinny or provide support that larger frames can achieve top-level running performances?