5 ms·

Maybe it's time to stop separating sports competitors into binary genders. We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of

Maybe it's time to stop separating sports competitors into binary genders. We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of 'gender'? People would still be able to be 'top' of their performance level, it just wouldn't be called a 'woman' level or 'man' level anymore.

dpbriggs 6y ago
There's the reality that there's considerable althetic differences at the highest levels. By not grouping at the source you'll end up with almost all women being strictly lower in the rankings, which is undesirable for obvious reasons. Not to mention the deluge of articles decrying sexism when reality is getting in the way.
- throwaway23838 6y ago
  If people really want to differentiate between men and women for some reason I can't understand they could still say themselves 'top person identifying as a woman'. Just don't make it part of the official system so other people can ignore it if they want. You could be the 'only woman in level 4 sprinting'. And wouldn't it be better for women - if they're able to push beyond other women and also compete with men? There would certainly be men in lower tiers than the top tier women.
  - statguy 6y ago
    I don't see how it would be better for women. If Serena Williams is in a league 3 levels below Roger Federer, playing with no name male players [1], what would that do to her star-power, endorsements, contracts? [1] http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/T...
- wruza 6y ago
  You don't choose to be born man or woman the same way you do not choose to be born with 10% shorter constitution, or with just an average one. Why do, say, basketball leagues not differentiate between short/average people (those who cannot reach the hoop, as originally intended) and tall giants, who can touch it by holding out their hand, and why isn't a hoop moved out of reach for the latter ones? I mean, it is not a question about basketball, it is about why gender is so important, when there are tens of parameters that may matter for a particular game. Sports is (should be at least) valued for an effort, skill and hard work first, builtin params last. This entire system is broken at the core, and gender is among the last of problems here.
marcusverus 6y ago
>We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of 'gender'? I'm not sure that this is possible while affording women a chance to compete. Men's physical advantages over women lend them a huge advantage in sports. We rarely see men compete against women, so the degree of the difference might not be very clear. Consider that, in 2017, the US Women's national soccer team (the best female soccer players in the US, who went on to win the world cup in 2019) was defeated by FC Dallas (a team made up of the best 14 year old boys from Dallas, TX). If there are eleven 14 year old boys in Dallas who are better than the best female soccer players in the world, how many grown men are there in the US who are better than the best woman? Thousands? Tens of thousands? With that in mind, how would you arrange a soccer league, arranged by performance level, in which women were able to compete in meaningful numbers?
- throwaway23838 6y ago
  > With that in mind, how could you possibly arrange a soccer league, arranged by performance level, in which women were able to compete in meaningful numbers? I don't really understand your question. We can have as many levels to our leagues as we want. As many women can play as they want. Maybe all the women will be in lower tier leagues, maybe some will be in the higher tiers. Why's that a problem? They're still getting to play the sport with opponents around their level. Isn't that the point of playing a sport? Playing a game with people who can challenge you. You can still play at the highest tier your ability will support. We can televise a lower tier if we want to. You can still support and follow a lower tier. What's missing from this model in your mind?
  - jpxw 6y ago
    This is like saying we should abolish under 15s sports leagues and just mix them in with the adults.
    - throwaway23838 6y ago
      Well... why not? If I'm a terrible player at the moment who can I play against? If I could play against the 14-year-olds I might be able to get a game. Why not let everyone play according to their ability, not matter what their age or 'gender' or whatever other discriminations we can think of?
listenallyall 6y ago
Ironic that you state this in the midst of the US Open. If there was no Women's tour, would the world have ever known who Serena Williams is? Or how brilliantly and powerfully she plays? What about Martina, Chrissy, Billie Jean, Steffi, and so many more?
- throwaway23838 6y ago
  You can still follow and appreciate lower tiers in the leagues if you want to. You could still say 'Serena Williams is killing it this year in Level 14 tennis' if you wanted to. What is so special about these people that means we should know about them compared to someone of another gender, or no gender, that plays better?
  - listenallyall 6y ago
    That's the whole point... who watches "Level 14" anything? She certainly wouldn't be at the US Open, playing in Arthur Ashe stadium, and most likely would have given tennis up as a full-time pursuit 2 decades ago. > What is so special about these people if you don't know, then I feel sorry for you.
Havoc 6y ago
>People would still be able to be 'top' of their performance level World champion second tier doesn't quite have the same ring to it though
nradov 6y ago
Another option someone else proposed was to replace the current binary "Male" and "Female" divisions with something like "XX” and "Open". The XX division would be limited to athletes with no Y chromosome and low testosterone levels. All other athletes would go to the Open division. I don't know whether that's a better solution but it might be worth considering. There are a few sports where sex / gender really are irrelevant, like shooting.
- leephillips 6y ago
  We already have this. It's called the women's division.
mlindner 6y ago
Because women, on average, are weaker than men, and if you group them together you simply exclude almost all women. If that's acceptable to society fine, but we'll quickly have 50% of the voting population protesting such measures. Gender segregation is something created by women for women.
bsder 6y ago
> We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of 'gender'? In what way is a testosterone limit of 10nmol/L not exactly a "performance level" like "100lb weight class"?

dpbriggs 6y ago

There's the reality that there's considerable althetic differences at the highest levels. By not grouping at the source you'll end up with almost all women being strictly lower in the rankings, which is undesirable for obvious reasons. Not to mention the deluge of articles decrying sexism when reality is getting in the way.

throwaway23838 6y ago
If people really want to differentiate between men and women for some reason I can't understand they could still say themselves 'top person identifying as a woman'. Just don't make it part of the official system so other people can ignore it if they want. You could be the 'only woman in level 4 sprinting'. And wouldn't it be better for women - if they're able to push beyond other women and also compete with men? There would certainly be men in lower tiers than the top tier women.
- statguy 6y ago
  I don't see how it would be better for women. If Serena Williams is in a league 3 levels below Roger Federer, playing with no name male players [1], what would that do to her star-power, endorsements, contracts? [1] http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/T...
wruza 6y ago
You don't choose to be born man or woman the same way you do not choose to be born with 10% shorter constitution, or with just an average one. Why do, say, basketball leagues not differentiate between short/average people (those who cannot reach the hoop, as originally intended) and tall giants, who can touch it by holding out their hand, and why isn't a hoop moved out of reach for the latter ones? I mean, it is not a question about basketball, it is about why gender is so important, when there are tens of parameters that may matter for a particular game. Sports is (should be at least) valued for an effort, skill and hard work first, builtin params last. This entire system is broken at the core, and gender is among the last of problems here.

marcusverus 6y ago

>We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of 'gender'? I'm not sure that this is possible while affording women a chance to compete. Men's physical advantages over women lend them a huge advantage in sports. We rarely see men compete against women, so the degree of the difference might not be very clear. Consider that, in 2017, the US Women's national soccer team (the best female soccer players in the US, who went on to win the world cup in 2019) was defeated by FC Dallas (a team made up of the best 14 year old boys from Dallas, TX). If there are eleven 14 year old boys in Dallas who are better than the best female soccer players in the world, how many grown men are there in the US who are better than the best woman? Thousands? Tens of thousands? With that in mind, how would you arrange a soccer league, arranged by performance level, in which women were able to compete in meaningful numbers?

throwaway23838 6y ago
> With that in mind, how could you possibly arrange a soccer league, arranged by performance level, in which women were able to compete in meaningful numbers? I don't really understand your question. We can have as many levels to our leagues as we want. As many women can play as they want. Maybe all the women will be in lower tier leagues, maybe some will be in the higher tiers. Why's that a problem? They're still getting to play the sport with opponents around their level. Isn't that the point of playing a sport? Playing a game with people who can challenge you. You can still play at the highest tier your ability will support. We can televise a lower tier if we want to. You can still support and follow a lower tier. What's missing from this model in your mind?
- jpxw 6y ago
  This is like saying we should abolish under 15s sports leagues and just mix them in with the adults.
  - throwaway23838 6y ago
    Well... why not? If I'm a terrible player at the moment who can I play against? If I could play against the 14-year-olds I might be able to get a game. Why not let everyone play according to their ability, not matter what their age or 'gender' or whatever other discriminations we can think of?

listenallyall 6y ago

Ironic that you state this in the midst of the US Open. If there was no Women's tour, would the world have ever known who Serena Williams is? Or how brilliantly and powerfully she plays? What about Martina, Chrissy, Billie Jean, Steffi, and so many more?

throwaway23838 6y ago
You can still follow and appreciate lower tiers in the leagues if you want to. You could still say 'Serena Williams is killing it this year in Level 14 tennis' if you wanted to. What is so special about these people that means we should know about them compared to someone of another gender, or no gender, that plays better?
- listenallyall 6y ago
  That's the whole point... who watches "Level 14" anything? She certainly wouldn't be at the US Open, playing in Arthur Ashe stadium, and most likely would have given tennis up as a full-time pursuit 2 decades ago. > What is so special about these people if you don't know, then I feel sorry for you.

Havoc 6y ago

>People would still be able to be 'top' of their performance level World champion second tier doesn't quite have the same ring to it though

nradov 6y ago

Another option someone else proposed was to replace the current binary "Male" and "Female" divisions with something like "XX” and "Open". The XX division would be limited to athletes with no Y chromosome and low testosterone levels. All other athletes would go to the Open division. I don't know whether that's a better solution but it might be worth considering. There are a few sports where sex / gender really are irrelevant, like shooting.

leephillips 6y ago
We already have this. It's called the women's division.

mlindner 6y ago

Because women, on average, are weaker than men, and if you group them together you simply exclude almost all women. If that's acceptable to society fine, but we'll quickly have 50% of the voting population protesting such measures. Gender segregation is something created by women for women.

bsder 6y ago

> We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of 'gender'? In what way is a testosterone limit of 10nmol/L not exactly a "performance level" like "100lb weight class"?