Should women's sports have separate websites on BBC Sport, Sky News, etc.?

[Von Luck]

While I've got no doubt that ultimately male teams will generally beat female teams if you played, say, England vs England.

I do wonder how much of the existing gap is due to the physiological differences and how much would be made up if women were coached to the extent most men have been these days, I.e. from 6/7 years old.

It's like the arguments about whether the Busby Babes were better than the modern Man Utd sides, no, they weren't, today's football is so much better than back then purely due to the physical and tactical training.

And also, I would imagine that 'most' boys at some point play football, and while participation for females is getting higher, I would guess the pool of players for men is significantly higher than for females.

It's not even close.

FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage

The match was in preparation for Thursday's USWNT friendly versus Russia

www.cbssports.com

Australian women's national team lose 7-0 to team of 15-year-old boys

Australia’s women’s football team are ranked the fifth best side in world football. So how did they lose 7-0 to a collection of 15-year-old boys?

www.standard.co.uk

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Yes, no ones interested in these sports, not even many women.

 

[C Kent]

You would just end up with tiers defined by sex again, with all the top tiers populated by males. Women's sport is separate because males have a 10% or more, depending on discipline, athletic advantage over female peers.

Very true and leads into the whole transwomen competing against real women being unfair. Thankfully more and more official organisations are seeing sense and banning this from happening.

Totally different topic tho and one that usually ends up getting locked.

 

[opethian]

You would just end up with tiers defined by sex again, with all the top tiers populated by males. Women's sport is separate because males have a 10% or more, depending on discipline, athletic advantage over female peers.

So what you're saying is that a move away from tiers defined by sex, which we have now, to a system as tiers defined by performance... will end up as tiers defined by sex?

I'm sorry. I don't get it. You're saying a move away will be the same? A conscious move away from tiers defined by sex to tiers defined by performance... is going to be defined by sex?

I think you misread by post. I said tiers by performance, NOT tiers by sex ---- which is what we have now.

 

[Von Luck]

So what you're saying is that a move away from tiers defined by sex, which we have now, to a system as tiers defined by performance... will end up as tiers defined by sex?

I'm sorry. I don't get it. You're saying a move away will be the same? A conscious move away from tiers defined by sex to tiers defined by performance... is going to be defined by sex?

I think you misread by post. I said tiers by performance, NOT tiers by sex ---- which is what we have now.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Take the Olympics, remove the sex categories and run each race. Which sex do you think will occupy the top 10 places in EVERY track and field event? Sports are separated by sex because the performance differential between male and female is far greater than that within each sex.

 

[C Kent]

So what you're saying is that a move away from tiers defined by sex, which we have now, to a system as tiers defined by performance... will end up as tiers defined by sex?

I'm sorry. I don't get it. You're saying a move away will be the same? A conscious move away from tiers defined by sex to tiers defined by performance... is going to be defined by sex?

I think you misread by post. I said tiers by performance, NOT tiers by sex ---- which is what we have now.

Because performance is directly tied to sex, it's not rocket science. Men perform at a higher level physically to women, eliminating what we currently have and moving to a performance based system as per your suggestion would just result in a tiered system of:
Men
Transwomen
Women

 

[Von Luck]

Exactly. Watching the World Championships at the moment really drives that point home. In the 800m the slowest of 24 male qualifiers for the semis ran 1:49:30. That's 4 seconds faster than the women's world record. The fastest woman qualifier at this event only ran 1:58:83. Tiers based on performance would effectively permanently exclude women from the top tier.

 

[Junglist]

I don't think they need separate websites. It's easy enough to see when it's a mens or womens event being covered. They're trying to get more eyes on womens sport, which is a good thing, so separating them would only make that worse.

I'm part of the problem though. Some womens sports I can watch quite easily but there are others I just can't put myself though. I don't mind womens boxing, cycling and tennis but I can't stand womens football and rugby.

 

[opethian]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Take the Olympics, remove the sex categories and run each race. Which sex do you think will occupy the top 10 places in EVERY track and field event? Sports are separated by sex because the performance differential between male and female is far greater than that within each sex.

But what I'm saying is let's tier it by performance. So if the top ten are all male, so what?

The main thing here is to go away from the focus on sex and gender and have an equal opportunity for everyone. If men don't have anything to lose, then a performance based tiering system would benefit everyone, right?

I can see where you're coming from though, but from my perspective, that's not even trying to progress the current situation (which is far from perfect and is in need of amendments) and keeping the status quo would stagnate sports. For example, moving towards performance tiers would even get rid of this trans debate in one fell swoop.

Have a simple S-class, A-class, B-class, C-class tiering system for any sport and have qualifiers. Everyone is welcome to try and qualify for it. No additional separate websites for women, just tiers based on performance.

It could even apply to league sports, S-league, A-league, B-league, etc.

Of course this is why I guess this is an unpopular opinion, such an idea would be, what's the word, "haram" and we'd get riots from conservative countries burning flags if this came to fruition... I guess let's stick with Male/Female system then... (but the terrorists win! oh noes)

 

[C Kent]

But what I'm saying is let's tier it by performance. So if the top ten are all male, so what?

The main thing here is to go away from the focus on sex and gender and have an equal opportunity for everyone. If men don't have anything to lose, then a performance based tiering system would benefit everyone, right?

I can see where you're coming from though, but from my perspective, that's not even trying to progress the current situation (which is far from perfect and is in need of amendments) and keeping the status quo would stagnate sports. For example, moving towards performance tiers would even get rid of this trans debate in one fell swoop.

Have a simple S-class, A-class, B-class, C-class tiering system for any sport and have qualifiers. Everyone is welcome to try and qualify for it. No additional separate websites for women, just tiers based on performance.

It could even apply to league sports, S-league, A-league, B-league, etc.

Of course this is why I guess this is an unpopular opinion, such an idea would be, what's the word, "haram" and we'd get riots from conservative countries burning flags if this came to fruition... I guess let's stick with Male/Female system then... (but the terrorists win! oh noes)

Changing the current system is nothing to do with men having nothing to lose. What about women? Why are you so keen to eradicate women from professional sports?

 

[opethian]

Why are you so keen to eradicate women from professional sports?

Whoah, hold your horses, please don't put words into my mouth! By your logic I might as well eradicate men from professional sports (which would be dumb as fck).

Eradicate... What the actual F

 

[C Kent]

Whoah, hold your horses, please don't put words into my mouth! By your logic I might as well eradicate men from professional sports (which would be dumb as fck).

Eradicate... What the actual F

Well it seems to me you are trying to shoehorn trans people into professional sports whilst glossing over their inherent physical advantages over women. Simpler solution would be men's, women's and other. Much fairer for all involved.

 

[BowdonUK]

I think some of the womens football games in ths european tournamnet as been good. It's improving. They just don't tackle as much as men.

As for the coaching question earlier, if you go to the US football (or soccer as they call it) is taught to girls more than boys. It was seen more of a girls game in the early days. It was obvious the US was putting in the coaching work decades in advance to get ahead in the womens game.

 

[C Kent]

As for the coaching question earlier, if you go to the US football (or soccer as they call it) is taught to girls more than boys. It was seen more of a girls game in the early days. It was obvious the US was putting in the coaching work decades in advance to get ahead in the womens game.

that's not actually true though, from Wikipedia

In 2012, soccer was the #1 most played team sport by high school boys, and soccer overtook softball to become the #3 most played team sport by high school girls.[121] As of 2006, the U.S. was the #1 country in the world for participation in youth soccer, with 3.9 million American youths (2.3 million boys and 1.6 million girls) registered with U.S. Soccer.[122] Among girls, the U.S. has more registered players than all other countries combined.[119]

 

[BowdonUK]

that's not actually true though, from Wikipedia

That is interesting.

I know when I was in the US in the early 2000(-2004) it was only ever girls I saw playing football, or advertising classes.

Though I guess thats just my anecdotal evidence.

 

[McGraw]

Not separate websites, just a filter.

 

[Von Luck]

But what I'm saying is let's tier it by performance. So if the top ten are all male, so what?

The main thing here is to go away from the focus on sex and gender and have an equal opportunity for everyone. If men don't have anything to lose, then a performance based tiering system would benefit everyone, right?

I can see where you're coming from though, but from my perspective, that's not even trying to progress the current situation (which is far from perfect and is in need of amendments) and keeping the status quo would stagnate sports. For example, moving towards performance tiers would even get rid of this trans debate in one fell swoop.

Have a simple S-class, A-class, B-class, C-class tiering system for any sport and have qualifiers. Everyone is welcome to try and qualify for it. No additional separate websites for women, just tiers based on performance.

It could even apply to league sports, S-league, A-league, B-league, etc.

Of course this is why I guess this is an unpopular opinion, such an idea would be, what's the word, "haram" and we'd get riots from conservative countries burning flags if this came to fruition... I guess let's stick with Male/Female system then... (but the terrorists win! oh noes)

If you tier by performance, all of the top tiers will be populated exclusively by men. You would effectively erase women from elite sport. Using football as an analogy, you'd have everything from the Premier League down to Vanarama only featuring men, with women playing kickabouts over the park.

You would see mediocre men reaping greater rewards than exceptional women. If you can't see why that's a problem then I don't know what else to say.

Women are not smaller, weaker men. They're an entirely separate sex with different musculoskeletal physiologies. In events determined by strength/speed they will always come 2nd to a male peer.

Elite sport exists to celebrate exceptional individuals in both sexes. In order to do so each sex needs separate events otherwise women will be excluded from the rewards that come from success.

 

[opethian]

If you tier by performance, all of the top tiers will be populated exclusively by men. You would effectively erase women from elite sport. Using football as an analogy, you'd have everything from the Premier League down to Vanarama only featuring men, with women playing kickabouts over the park.

You would see mediocre men reaping greater rewards than exceptional women. If you can't see why that's a problem then I don't know what else to say.

Women are not smaller, weaker men. They're an entirely separate sex with different musculoskeletal physiologies. In events determined by strength/speed they will always come 2nd to a male peer.

Elite sport exists to celebrate exceptional individuals in both sexes. In order to do so each sex needs separate events otherwise women will be excluded from the rewards that come from success.

That's a very likely scenario, and thank you for taking the time and having the patience to explain that in detail.

I stand corrected on my stance, with a small reservation, as I think there would be sports where sex might not be a bigger factor (or not even a factor at all) compared to others.

 

[fez]

I stand corrected on my stance, with a small reservation, as I think there would be sports where sex might not be a bigger factor (or not even a factor at all) compared to others.

Funnily enough, you would think that but even in sports that don't appear to have a particular advantage in physicality, women are still almost always second best. Fundamentally, any competitive endeavour that is a sport gives you some advantage when you are stronger, faster, have faster reactions, more aggression etc.

Even things like snooker, darts, motor sports, they all are dominated by men. Some of that will be societal and might change as more women take part but men and women are built differently and wired differently. You have to accept and celebrate that difference rather than try to directly compare.

 

[Bug One]

It isnt Sunday league standard. That's a silly statement tbh

No, they're nowhere near a 1st division Sunday league team. Having played Saturday / Sunday and now Veterans league football - the level of talent is extremely varied and the top teams are mostly made up of retired semi-professionals.

I'm not surprised they got smashed by 15 year olds. Just look at the photo of the lads - they're taller than the ladies and at academy level would be highly talented. There's a level of physicality in football that - if you've got it - puts you into another tier. Speed, power and agility are huge factors - and the ability to maintain that for 90 minutes. It's not just about ball control.