ScienceNostalgia101 Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 Wasn't part of the point of sex-segregating sports to make sure it's primarily a test of athletic skill, rather than of skill at not being distracted by one's opponent? Is it possible the introduction of athletes who are still anatomically of the opposite sex might make their opponents subconsciously realize this, and in turn, be a confounding factor in the extent to which it's about athletic skills?
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 18 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said: Wasn't part of the point of sex-segregating sports to make sure it's primarily a test of athletic skill, rather than of skill at not being distracted by one's opponent? No. It was 'sex-segregated' due to misogyny. Women and girls were considered unfit for sports that might kill them. Later on it was not considered a good use of resources to fund women's sports. Ever hear the term "you throw like a girl"?
ScienceNostalgia101 Posted July 16, 2021 Author Posted July 16, 2021 1 minute ago, zapatos said: No. It was 'sex-segregated' due to misogyny. Women and girls were considered unfit for sports that might kill them. Later on it was not considered a good use of resources to fund women's sports. Ever hear the term "you throw like a girl"? Yes, yes I have. But even the notion that sports in particular are not necessarily women's forte in general wouldn't necessarily be enough to make or break whether or not someone opposed funding women's sports at all any more than, let's say, the notion that cooking isn't necessarily men's forte in general wouldn't necessarily make someone oppose funding home ec classes that male students are eligible to attend. If people disagreed with the former statement, they'd distance themselves from it more often. If they opposed male students' eligibility for home ec classes, they'd find a school board candidate who made opposition to it the central plank of their platform. In every other setting, the idea of protecting anyone from themselves would be unthinkable. If sports are still segregated, something else happened.
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 (edited) 51 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said: Wasn't part of the point of sex-segregating sports to make sure it's primarily a test of athletic skill, rather than of skill at not being distracted by one's opponent? Is it possible the introduction of athletes who are still anatomically of the opposite sex might make their opponents subconsciously realize this, and in turn, be a confounding factor in the extent to which it's about athletic skills? People compete on side with, and against, people of their preferred sex all the time. I'm sure it happens... ...but the point of sex-segregating in competitive sports was to give female athletes a chance to train, compete and excel on a more level playing field, an achievable level for many and a goal for many more that they would not have otherwise had. A further point I have tried to make many times is that this has produced many, many elite athletes, who deserve to be recognized as such. Ideally transgender men and women would get the same chance but IMO it should not be by displacing these women, especially while retaining male advantages. That of course can have many interpretations, a lot of which has been covered in this thread. Edited July 16, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 22 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said: Yes, yes I have. But even the notion that sports in particular are not necessarily women's forte in general wouldn't necessarily be enough to make or break whether or not someone opposed funding women's sports at all any more than, let's say, the notion that cooking isn't necessarily men's forte in general wouldn't necessarily make someone oppose funding home ec classes that male students are eligible to attend. Yes, they did that too. Women were not allowed to study science and instead were taught to cook and sew in school.
ScienceNostalgia101 Posted July 16, 2021 Author Posted July 16, 2021 1 minute ago, zapatos said: Yes, they did that too. Women were not allowed to study science and instead were taught to cook and sew in school. And yet, even after that policy changed, sex-segregation of sports has not.
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 Just now, ScienceNostalgia101 said: And yet, even after that policy changed, sex-segregation of sports has not. I played soccer on a co-ed team, and I wouldn't say the policies have changed all that much. Did you happen to follow the controversy surrounding the accommodations for men's NCAA basketball vs that of the women? It was embarrassing. Brazil has long had a great women's soccer team and arguably the best woman player in the world, yet the funding for the women is minuscule. One of the men in charge of the men's league suggested the women needed to wear smaller shorts. The misogyny has not gone away.
ScienceNostalgia101 Posted July 16, 2021 Author Posted July 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, zapatos said: I played soccer on a co-ed team, and I wouldn't say the policies have changed all that much. Did you happen to follow the controversy surrounding the accommodations for men's NCAA basketball vs that of the women? It was embarrassing. Brazil has long had a great women's soccer team and arguably the best woman player in the world, yet the funding for the women is minuscule. One of the men in charge of the men's league suggested the women needed to wear smaller shorts. The misogyny has not gone away. Care to link to what in particular you're referring to? I'm not much into sports, I'm just going by the explanation that seems the most directly relevant to the... anatomical notions of male and female. The rest are just murkier hormonal reasons that could go either way and are not as widely accepted in other settings. Funding in particular is directed at expected return on investment, not skill. If customers would rather watch a mediocre man than the most skilled woman in the world, it's not some private investor's job to impose the latter on them.
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 13 minutes ago, zapatos said: I played soccer on a co-ed team, and I wouldn't say the policies have changed all that much. Did you happen to follow the controversy surrounding the accommodations for men's NCAA basketball vs that of the women? It was embarrassing. What kind of accommodations would the women's teams get get, if not subsidized by the money generated by the NCAA mens teams? Why are they not comparing themselves to the mens table tennis team? 18 minutes ago, zapatos said: The misogyny has not gone away. Some men will always be pigs. Another unfortunate universal truth...
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said: Funding in particular is directed at expected return on investment, not skill. If customers would rather watch a mediocre man than the most skilled woman in the world, it's not some private investor's job to impose the latter on them. The NCAA is full of publicly funded schools, not private investors. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/03/ncaa-tournament-womens-weight-room-unequal-access Suggesting women need to wear smaller shorts is misogynistic whether there is private or public funding. 5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: What kind of accommodations would the women's teams get get, if not subsidized by the money generated by the NCAA mens teams? Why are they not comparing themselves to the mens table tennis team? I think the first time I see you support a minority I'm going to set off some fireworks.
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, zapatos said: The NCAA is full of publicly funded schools, not private investors. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/03/ncaa-tournament-womens-weight-room-unequal-access I'm willing to bet that schools that have teams that generate less revenue....have lesser accommodations for said teams. 6 minutes ago, zapatos said: Suggesting women need to wear smaller shorts is misogynistic whether there is private or public funding. Again. I agree.
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I'm willing to bet that schools that have teams that generate less revenue....have lesser accommodations for said teams. You'd lose that bet. They were shared facilities. All the men's teams shared the same facilities. All the women's teams shared the same facilities.
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, zapatos said: You'd lose that bet. They were shared facilities. All the men's teams shared the same facilities. All the women's teams shared the same facilities. The NCAA mens teams that generate lesser revenues were't at that tournament. Rest assured that the females teams at that tournament had at least as nice accommodations as mens lower division teams.
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: The NCAA mens teams that generate lesser revenues were't at that tournament. Citation?
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, zapatos said: Citation? You think Div 2 and 3 teams generate more revenues than Div 1?
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said: You think Div 2 and 3 teams generate more revenues than Div 1? Great citation. You're on top of your game tonight.
ScienceNostalgia101 Posted July 16, 2021 Author Posted July 16, 2021 1 minute ago, zapatos said: The NCAA is full of publicly funded schools, not private investors. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/03/ncaa-tournament-womens-weight-room-unequal-access Suggesting women need to wear smaller shorts is misogynistic whether there is private or public funding. My bad on the mixup; the acronym NCAA reminded me of those used by actually profit-driven sports institutions such as the NFL. Still, one doesn't need to believe women "shouldn't" be playing sports so as not to be as inclined to actively funnel tax dollars toward their sports as to those of male athletes. The voters are notoriously stingy with tax dollars; they opposed funding abortion instead of letting the customer pay, even though low-income women need it most, but stopped short of banning it altogether. They opposed funding embryonic stem cell research, even though the alternative is to leave it in big pharma's hands, but stopped short of banning it altogether. Etc... the gulf between supporting something and supporting government funding thereof is even wider for conservatives and libertarians than it is for progressives; and I get the impression from your takes on politics that you fall primarily into the third category. I'd also be curious whether or not profit is still a factor even though it's a public service. It certainly is with the use of tourism revenue to justify taxpayer funding for the UK's fake monarchy. It's possible that the belief that men "need" sports more than women do is driven by the notion that, in addition to all the other motives people of either sex have for participating in sports, male athletes are motivated partly by the longing to impress women, whereas women have a wider variety of ways at their disposal of impressing men. Of course, I'm also somewhat skeptical of the assumption that guys who suck at sports aren't desirable to women, but I can still see the direct relevance of the genitals to the motives involved that doesn't require one to believe women would hurt themselves playing sports, much less feel justified in attempting to protect them from themselves.
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 13 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said: I'd also be curious whether or not profit is still a factor even though it's a public service. It certainly is with the use of tourism revenue to justify taxpayer funding for the UK's fake monarchy. I imagine that at some level profit will always be a factor. And while the primary reason men and women are segregated today is due to physical differences, there are some women who are making inroads into traditional men-only sports. I watched a woman compete in men's NCAA football for the first time this past season. That was surprisingly exciting even though she didn't do much.
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 1 minute ago, zapatos said: Great citation. You're on top of your game tonight. It's not an extraordinary claim Zap. If you claim it's not true...that would be. https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/championships-finances "For 2011-12, the most recent year for which final numbers are available, the NCAA spent a total of $105.3 million on championships. Of that, $68.8 million (65 percent) was spent on Division I and National Collegiate championships, $17.8 million on Division II championships (17 percent) and $18.7 million on Division III championships (18 percent)." also: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/expenses "Frequently Asked Questions The NCAA sends $503 million to Division I conferences and institutions. Does that cover most of their operating expenses? No. At a typical Division I institution, the NCAA distribution will cover less than 5 percent of expenses." Hopefully that might help you understand. If you want to question the obvious further...you're on your own. Certain Div 1 Mens teams generate huge revenues...Div 1 minor sports, div1 womens teams, div 3 teams...not so much.
ScienceNostalgia101 Posted July 16, 2021 Author Posted July 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, zapatos said: I imagine that at some level profit will always be a factor. And while the primary reason men and women are segregated today is due to physical differences, there are some women who are making inroads into traditional men-only sports. I watched a woman compete in men's NCAA football for the first time this past season. That was surprisingly exciting even though she didn't do much. I'm kind of left wondering how many of her opponents attempted to get themselves tackled by her on purpose at the expense of winning the game...
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said: I'm kind of left wondering how many of her opponents attempted to get themselves tackled by her on purpose at the expense of winning the game... 15 minutes ago, zapatos said: I imagine that at some level profit will always be a factor. And while the primary reason men and women are segregated today is due to physical differences, there are some women who are making inroads into traditional men-only sports. I watched a woman compete in men's NCAA football for the first time this past season. That was surprisingly exciting even though she didn't do much. She's as elite an athlete as her teammates, regardless if she can't compete at that level.
MigL Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 (edited) I see no point in going further with this, when SN101 can come in, 23 pages after the fact, and make the absurd claim that gender segregation in sports is due to the fact that opposite genders may 'distract' each other while competing; and no-one bothers to correct him. It is as though the arguments made in the last 22 pages did not even exist. Please get a clue, before you get an opinion. Edited July 16, 2021 by MigL
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: No. At a typical Division I institution, the NCAA distribution will cover less than 5 percent of expenses." Hopefully that might help you understand. If you want to question the obvious further...you're on your own. Certain Div 1 Mens teams generate huge revenues...Div 1 minor sports, div1 womens teams, div 3 teams...not so much. So where is the revenue information? You completely failed to support your assertion that the NCAA mens teams that generate lesser revenues were't at that tournament. Care to try again?
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 4 minutes ago, MigL said: I see no point in going further with this, when SN101 can come in, 23 pages after the fact, and make the absurd claim that gender segregation in sports is due to the fact that opposite genders may 'distract' each other while competing; and no-one bothers to correct him. It is as though the arguments made in the last 22 pages did not even exist. Please get a clue, before you get an opinion. I thought I had, but maybe not clearly enough. 2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said: People compete on side with, and against, people of their preferred sex all the time. I'm sure it happens... ...but the point of sex-segregating in competitive sports was to give female athletes a chance to train, compete and excel on a more level playing field, an achievable level for many and a goal for many more that they would not have otherwise had. 2 minutes ago, zapatos said: So where is the revenue information? You completely failed to support your assertion that the NCAA mens teams that generate lesser revenues were't at that tournament. Care to try again? Reading comprehension much? 24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: It's not an extraordinary claim Zap. If you claim it's not true...that would be. ...Hopefully that might help you understand. If you want to question the obvious further...you're on your own.
zapatos Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I thought I had, but maybe not clearly enough. Reading comprehension much? Pull facts out of your ass much?
Recommended Posts