Jump to content

Gender segregration in sports


Renegade

Recommended Posts

Girls get shot at boys' hockey

WINNIPEG (CP) — Hockey-playing sisters Amy and Jesse Pasternak are savouring their victory at the Manitoba Human Rights Commission that will allow them to play for their high school boys team.

...

The Grade 12 students took their complaint to the commission this spring to protest a Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association policy forbidding girls from playing on a boys team when a school has a girls squad.

The association argued the policy was an integral part of a participation-based approach to sports that isn’t based on merit.

link

Should any barriers even exist to prevent girls or women from competing on the same playing field as boys or men? Is the a problem with a boy trying out for a girls team? Should this concept be extended even further, for example, why have separate "mens" and "womens" events at the olympics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Males commonly have a physical advantage.

If sports competitions did not discriminate, we will likely see women not EVER getting a chance to compete.

Basketball leagues do not discriminate over player height. It just turns out that taller players perform better. Therefore, short basketball players rarely get a chance to compete in the same leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should any barriers even exist to prevent girls or women from competing on the same playing field as boys or men? Is the a problem with a boy trying out for a girls team? Should this concept be extended even further, for example, why have separate "mens" and "womens" events at the olympics?

I personally don't see anything wrong with it if they feel they can compete on a men's team.

The Human Rights Commission was clear though that boys and men can't compete on female teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what.
So what are you going to do with 50% of the athletic population that wants to participate in sports?
It can be argued that some races have a physical advantage, yet we don't discrimminate on race.
The lower-skilled races should set up a segregated league. I am being flippant.

Personally, I do not care. There is no 100% all-fair non-discriminating solution except to have it completely out of the hands of a government and keep it in a private market.

The true problem that I see is that this issue deals with a "school" sports league. Since they are spending tax-payer's money, it is impossible to come up with a "fair" solution. If it was a private club, it would be fair to discriminate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are you going to do with 50% of the athletic population that wants to participate in sports?

I don't intend to do anything however they are free to particpate at the level of skill they achieve. For example, if the cutoff was based upon skill level rather than gender, "Tier 1" women players may be playing on the same field as "Tier 3" male players.

There is no 100% all-fair non-discriminating solution except to have it completely out of the hands of a government and keep it in a private market.

The true problem that I see is that this issue deals with a "school" sports league. Since they are spending tax-payer's money, it is impossible to come up with a "fair" solution. If it was a private club, it would be fair to discriminate.

Exactly, there is no 100% fair solution, so why pick one somewhat arbritary factor as the basis for discrimmination. There is a "fair" solution and skill is the discrimminating factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a cite for this? I'd be interested in how they justify a blatant double-standard.

I saw it on Global News last night. The report also said that the girls on the boys team get individual coaching.

http://www.picshare.tv/humanrights/Decision_Pasternak.PDF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't intend to do anything however they are free to particpate at the level of skill they achieve. For example, if the cutoff was based upon skill level rather than gender, "Tier 1" women players may be playing on the same field as "Tier 3" male players.
That would make sense but old traditions die hard. I think we are stuck with tradition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a cite for this? I'd be interested in how they justify a blatant double-standard.

I saw it on Global News last night. The report also said that the girls on the boys team get individual coaching.

http://www.picshare.tv/humanrights/Decision_Pasternak.PDF

I read through the decison and didn't see any evidence to back your claim that "The Human Rights Commission was clear though that boys and men can't compete on female teams.". In fact based upon the justification, I would say that a boy, finding himself in a similar situation would be justified in claiming support in the decision for trying out for an opposite-sex team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This political crap has to stop before someone is seriously injured. Its one thing to have girls and boys playing competitive sports BEFORE puberty. Common sense dictates that once children reach puberty, they need to be seperated for two reasons. Firstly placing young pubic men in close contact with females is a no brainer. Secondly and more importantly, young girls could get seriously hurt from the body contact because of the difference in body size, weight and structure of the pelvic girdle, chest, etc.

Even an idiot can figure out a Young man raging with hormones and adrenalin hitting a young woman is a recipe for disaster.

This is idiotic to think women can play football, hockey or other contact sports with men once they start maturing.

You don't achieve equality between the genders by pretending you are the same when you are not. Equality comes from respect. It doesn't come from being idiotic and ignoring basic ruels of nature.l Respecting women is one issue. Trying to pretend they are physically the same as men is another and is idiotic. Enough with this nonsense.

This isn't golf or mixed tennis. Hockey is a dangerous sport in the wrong hands and circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly placing young pubic men in close contact with females is a no brainer. Secondly and more importantly, young girls could get seriously hurt from the body contact because of the difference in body size, weight and structure of the pelvic girdle, chest, etc.

I'm realy not sure what "young pubic men" are, but regardless, I don't see how, while engaged in sports, they are in any closer contact with females than at a high-school dance or a crowded bus.

As for your second issue, perhaps size shoudl be the discrimminating factor and not gender. There are large women, and there are small men. Gender alone does't determine whether someone is going get injured in sports. According to your logic, to prevent injury we should ban small statured men from trying out for hockey teams, yet we don't.

Even an idiot can figure out a Young man raging with hormones and adrenalin hitting a young woman is a recipe for disaster.

This is idiotic to think women can play football, hockey or other contact sports with men once they start maturing.

I guess I'm an idiot then, because as far as I am aware, it is really up to the men to control their hormones whether on or off the field. You are making a bunch of generalizations which may not apply in the specifics.

You don't achieve equality between the genders by pretending you are the same when you are not. Equality comes from respect. It doesn't come from being idiotic and ignoring basic ruels of nature.l Respecting women is one issue. Trying to pretend they are physically the same as men is another and is idiotic. Enough with this nonsense.

This isn't golf or mixed tennis. Hockey is a dangerous sport in the wrong hands and circumstances.

I don't think this is about pretending that the genders are the same. This is about giving people individual choice on where they compete without adding artificial discrimminatory barriers.

BTW, if you think "hockey is a dangerous sport", then perhaps the effort should be spent to make the sport safe for both men and women, instead of instituting segregation into the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read through the decison and didn't see any evidence to back your claim that "The Human Rights Commission was clear though that boys and men can't compete on female teams.". In fact based upon the justification, I would say that a boy, finding himself in a similar situation would be justified in claiming support in the decision for trying out for an opposite-sex team.

The locals news in Winnipeg said that the decision only applied to hockey and didn't mean that the boys could try out for girls teams.

"Manitoba Human Rights Commission lawyer Sarah Lugtig said Harrison's ruling means that if girls want to try out for boys' teams in other high school sports, the MHSAA must "look at the ruling, apply this ruling when it comes to another sport."

She said that Harrison said nothing about boys trying out for girls' teams. "The current system of girls-only teams stays in place," Lugtig said. "

- Source Winnipeg Free Press

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be kidding. You don't know what a pubic man is. Let us start with you. Do you remember what you were like in the middle of puberty? Probably not. Let me remind you. You were a galoot, a spaz, a half man, half boy with arms and legs out of control and your frontal lobe expanding from the size of a small dot to a large grape-fruit. Yoru inhibitions, emotions, and temper were all over the place. You could get an erection at the slightest provocation. But oh I know you would have us believe you were an angel and never had an urge.

Putting that idiocy aside, this has nothing to do with body size. This has to do with the physical difference in anatomy. Use your brain bobo. You think a woman of 180 pounds is built the same way a guy of 180 pounds is built. Let's try this for starters-womens' bodies contain much more water and less muscle content. Their pelvic girdles are shaped differently. In case you haven't noticed they have uteruses that under the same conditions of being wacked as a man's chest and pelvic area, may not necessarily be protected from serious damage.

It is one thing for two large women to hit one another, its another for a man to do it. More to the point your arguement is absolutely stupid. If I take it to its logical conclusion what will you do. Define the leagues by weight and body size? This is not wrestling bo bo, its hockey. Its a team sport. In individual sports your arguement would of course prevail but not in organized team sports.

Now if you need someone to explain to you why a small man getting hit by a bigger man is different then a woman being hit by a man bigger then her or even the same size perhaps you need to go to anatomy class.

You live in a dream land pretending women and men are physically the same. You are mixing up your political ideology and belief that you are defending women's equality with a completely different concept and that is the physical difference in genders after puberty.

More to the point, for you to even remotely suggest hockey should be made safer so as to allow people of different genders to play together after puberty is the icing on the cake. How about I explain it this way. Mats Sundin already plays like someone of the other gender.

Oops that wasn't politically correct.

I have coached women's soccer teams for years. There is a reason at 14 to 17 we seperate them from boys. The sexual tension would make it impossible for them to enjoy the sport if we didn't.

You can pretend this is not the case, but that my friend is just a normal, natural fact. Maybe you were not attracted to girls during puberty but most guys are andfor you to pretend that isn't the case, is laughable.

Natural sex urges at puberty are a fact for most humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read through the decison and didn't see any evidence to back your claim that "The Human Rights Commission was clear though that boys and men can't compete on female teams.". In fact based upon the justification, I would say that a boy, finding himself in a similar situation would be justified in claiming support in the decision for trying out for an opposite-sex team.

The locals news in Winnipeg said that the decision only applied to hockey and didn't mean that the boys could try out for girls teams.

"Manitoba Human Rights Commission lawyer Sarah Lugtig said Harrison's ruling means that if girls want to try out for boys' teams in other high school sports, the MHSAA must "look at the ruling, apply this ruling when it comes to another sport."

She said that Harrison said nothing about boys trying out for girls' teams. "The current system of girls-only teams stays in place," Lugtig said. "

- Source Winnipeg Free Press

Exactly. The ruling says nothing about boys trying out for girls teams. This is quite different from a ruling from the Human Rights Commission that a boy can't compete on female teams. In fact this has not been tested either before the courts or before the Human Rights Commission. All Lugtig is saying is that until there is a case, the status quo applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be kidding. You don't know what a pubic man is. Let us start with you. Do you remember what you were like in the middle of puberty? Probably not. Let me remind you. You were a galoot, a spaz, a half man, half boy with arms and legs out of control and your frontal lobe expanding from the size of a small dot to a large grape-fruit. Yoru inhibitions, emotions, and temper were all over the place. You could get an erection at the slightest provocation. But oh I know you would have us believe you were an angel and never had an urge.

You crack me up. You don't know me, but you know all about me, eh? I guess you know about as much about me as you do the topic of which you write.

Do you even know the definition of "pubic"? Go look it up and tell me if it makes any sense as an adjective to "man".

Putting that idiocy aside, this has nothing to do with body size. This has to do with the physical difference in anatomy. Use your brain bobo. You think a woman of 180 pounds is built the same way a guy of 180 pounds is built. Let's try this for starters-womens' bodies contain much more water and less muscle content. Their pelvic girdles are shaped differently. In case you haven't noticed they have uteruses that under the same conditions of being wacked as a man's chest and pelvic area, may not necessarily be protected from serious damage.

What's your point? That the current hockey equipment doesn't adequately protect women's uterus? Ok, I'll buy that. So how about we address that instead of a general categorization of women? I can equally say that men are much more vunerable to a shot to the nuts than are women. So should we ban men with large balls from playing hockey?

BTW, since you like to call me "bobo",do you mind if I call you "Mo" as a kind of pet name for moron?

It is one thing for two large women to hit one another, its another for a man to do it. More to the point your arguement is absolutely stupid. If I take it to its logical conclusion what will you do. Define the leagues by weight and body size? This is not wrestling bo bo, its hockey. Its a team sport. In individual sports your arguement would of course prevail but not in organized team sports.

Hey Mo, personally, I havent' thought about enough to say that size or weight is the factor we should use. It was just a suggestion I threw out there. I'm pretty sure though that size or weight is probably less arbitrary than gender. Mo, you say it is not wrestling, which uses weight classes. Perhaps you can explain why it is different? Why woudl weight be an acceptable means of differentiation in wrestling or boxing but not in hockey?

You seem to use the fact that it is a team sport as an execuse to dismiss the idea that size should not be used. Well Mo, isn't gender currently used as the criteria for individual filtering even for team sports? Why wouldn't size or weight or whatever the appropriate criteria be used the same way?

Now if you need someone to explain to you why a small man getting hit by a bigger man is different then a woman being hit by a man bigger then her or even the same size perhaps you need to go to anatomy class.

You keep saying it is plainly obvious, yet you can't explain the obvious. Both men and women have spots in which they are more vunerable. Wouldn't you agree that having vunerable spots should not disqualify them from participation?

You live in a dream land pretending women and men are physically the same. You are mixing up your political ideology and belief that you are defending women's equality with a completely different concept and that is the physical difference in genders after puberty.

No I never claimed that women and men are physically the same. Show me where I said that. Thank you for telling me what I am thinking. I'm sure you know much better than me, Mo.

More to the point, for you to even remotely suggest hockey should be made safer so as to allow people of different genders to play together after puberty is the icing on the cake. How about I explain it this way. Mats Sundin already plays like someone of the other gender.

Oops that wasn't politically correct.

You haven't explained at all. I'm still waitng for your explaination. As far a Mats is concerned, he is free to try out for the team (of either gender) which best fits his playing style.

I have coached women's soccer teams for years. There is a reason at 14 to 17 we seperate them from boys. The sexual tension would make it impossible for them to enjoy the sport if we didn't.

You can pretend this is not the case, but that my friend is just a normal, natural fact. Maybe you were not attracted to girls during puberty but most guys are andfor you to pretend that isn't the case, is laughable.

Natural sex urges at puberty are a fact for most humans.

Again you claim things I never said. Where did I "pretend this is not the case"? I agree with you that young men and women are attracted during puberty, and hormones will fuel the fire. Despite this, you don't explain why then we don't segrate the rest of their activities. Should we have separate buses, classes, and schools for young men and young women? You also don't justify why we have the segregation well beyond puberty.

Also, since gay young men and women are subject to the same homornal urges that other hetrosexual young kids are, why is it we dont' segerate them as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, this issue is should be about total vs. non-segregation of the sexes. Either we have boys only and girls only clubs (such as the boy scouts and girl guides) or we have none at all. There was one female to play hockey at the pro level (Manon Rheaume, I believe, who played in an NHL exhibition game for the Lightning, I think) and no where in the rulebooks does it say that you have to have a wiener between your legs to stop pucks. The trick is to be better at it than anyone else, period.

Discrimination based on gender should either be enforced equally or abolished. That is, I say it is hypocritical that girls can join the boy scouts but boys cannot join the girl guides. Same goes for hockey. Ridiculous as it sounds, there should be no separate changing rooms, etc nor any other 'non-equal' treatment for either gender.

If a woman can take getting plastered into the boards at full tilt by a 6'2" 200lb 16 yr old, and then get up and continue with the flow of the play, (or get knocked out cold but return the next period...and I don't mean 28 days later, lol) then so be it, she can earn a spot on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of all the homosexuals that would feel more comfortable with the girl guides? That's where progress will be made, you need to get a minority group enthralled and things will move on gender equality.

Right now, I honestly can say males are significantly more restricted in their activites then females, by legislation at least. This is an injustice of the state and pure discrimination at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should any barriers even exist to prevent girls or women from competing on the same playing field as boys or men? Is the a problem with a boy trying out for a girls team? Should this concept be extended even further, for example, why have separate "mens" and "womens" events at the olympics?

I personally don't see anything wrong with it if they feel they can compete on a men's team.

The Human Rights Commission was clear though that boys and men can't compete on female teams.

Yes, human rights commmisions seldom have problems with unfairness and illogic like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, human rights commmisions seldom have problems with unfairness and illogic like that.

Actually, I stood corrected on that. The decision is only for hockey and girls trying out for boys teams. The present system that doesn't allow boys to try out for girls teams is one made by the althletic association.

If there is unfairness, it resides with them, not the Human Rights Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should any barriers even exist to prevent girls or women from competing on the same playing field as boys or men? Is the a problem with a boy trying out for a girls team? Should this concept be extended even further, for example, why have separate "men's" and "women's" events at the Olympics?

I would like to respond a bit to this gender segregation in sports - you'd be surprise to learn that I do believe we should keep the intersection of gender and sport separate.

Women have historically been denied too many opportunities, participation in sports being one of them. According to the law women should not be discriminated in this instance, similar to other occupation requiring use of endurance. But, for argument I would downplay the law and suggest having strength such as occupation as a firefighter is a different issue.

I would also say that men accessing a women's soccer team or any sports team for that matter is not the same as women accessing a men's team because of the female historical disadvantage. A man would always be a top player in the women team, whereas women would be very concentrated, and try much harder to be an average player on a men's team. So it would make sense for the law to deny a man trying for the women's team.

I mean Hello, the court also recognise that you'd always end up with an all male team that we call "girls team" and most likely end up with identity crises.

However hypocritical, I cannot deny that as much as women will try to fulfill their athletic abilities we cannot blame men that we are not as enduring or strong as they are. The guilt trip for keeping women in their place as being "weak" and discouraging them does not hold in sports. It is a reality check.

What I mean is that if you currently put the best of male and female marathon runners to compete, the first women athlete to cross the finish line would be number 40 after all those males. However, there is room to change a culture of how men identify and separate themselves with sports.

I'll give an example from the hospital: nurses are usually females. However males who are nurses who usually wish to distance themselves from the undervalue females will employ strategies of talking about "sports" to elevate and separate their genders hence perpetuating the male advantage.

For this reason I would like to encourage women to compete among themselves and be the best they can at their game. The experience of being an outstanding athlete does not have to be standardise by a male performance. Women can build their skill, and competencies in any game with flair.

Tennis is such a sport - the women play for only 3 sets since this is all the energies they can muster compare to the men's game of 5 sets. However, the ladies get the endorsements, comparable salary, audience on TV, higher ratings and attendance is higher compare to men.

So it is my believe that women can surely neutralize sports and get rid of gender discrepancies in sports. Because as far as I am concern it is about power, lucrative monies, disparities in sports, and a conquest of this male obsession with sports.

All we need folks is encourage sports for women to new heights and at our own level.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women have historically been denied too many opportunities, participation in sports being one of them.
Granted. That was then. This is now.
I would also say that men accessing a women's soccer team or any sports team for that matter is not the same as women accessing a men's team because of the female historical disadvantage.
No. It is illogical to bring up "historical" issues to explain what we do today. I believe there are more simpler reasons.
Women can build their skill, and competencies in any game with flair.

Tennis is such a sport - the women play for only 3 sets since this is all the energies they can muster compare to the men's game of 5 sets. However, the ladies get the endorsements, comparable salary, audience on TV, higher ratings and attendance is higher compare to men.

I doubt women's skill or competency or flair in sports will ever matter much at all. Here is a reality check: I hate watching tennis but I enjoy watching women's tennis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some girls from the girls' team are not happy with these two sisters. Apparently they referred to the girls'

team as being a joke...or something to that effect.

Hockey can be violent. So what happens if one of the girls get bashed while playing. Will they cite violence towards women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...