Should Men Be Able To Compete In Female Sports?

I'm not sure this is very often the case, but I think sometimes a school/college/professional sport (such as golf) already has a female team or individuals, but still the female(s) who are GOOD ENOUGH (superior to the other females in that sport) to be on the mens' team are allowed to play on it. So, shouldn't this mean that a man who isn't quite good enough to be on the men's team, should be allowed to play on the women's team?? The author doesn't mention this particular scenario. (I don't know how many male athletes would actually WANT to do this - they might become laughing stocks of the campus.)

I would also mention that I do NOT agree with the author, when he says ALL sports should be coed (assuming he means all teams). That would be absurd. He himself raises the issue of injuries to female players, such as on football teams (not to mention wrestling!). Besides, it would diminish the competitiveness of teams - who wants to go to a college basketball game, where a seven foot center goes up against a 5' 10" female (at ANY position) on the other team? That COULD possibly happen - say if Duke played Southern Podunk, especially in the new "equalized" NCAA Tournament, and if in the name of equality, the S.P. team HAD to have at least one female player. (Of course one might say that Duke would have won anyway, but that is not the point). Another possible scenario would be if a school's wrestling had to forfeit one or more matches, to keep female wrestler(s) from getting hurt.

There are just too many possible ways that ridiculous situations such as those above would occur. And to tell you the truth, I think that 20 years from now, when we are back to basically one-sex teams (and hopefully have changed or done away with Title IX), people will look back and laugh at this failed "experiment" (coed teams).

-Axolotl

I essentially agree with the author. Under Title IX, all sports should be coed. There is no reason that two people of equal ability should be treated differently because of sex in public accommodations.

The vast majority of men cannot participate at the Division I level. To put it simply, they're not good enough. They're too small, too slow, etc. The majority of men would be injured if they played varsity contact sports. We don't make exceptions for them. If you can't run a 4:10 mile, you can't be on the track team. If you can't dunk a basketball, you can't be on the basketball team. If you can't run a 4.5 40, you can't be on the football team. Or, to be more precise, if their are people better than you, you don't get to participate at their level. Men accept these rules. Why can't feminists who support Title IX?

We don't segregate by race even though blacks disproportionately outnumber whites in high visibility sports by over 10-to-1, whether it is by nature or nurture. Why should we segregate by sex?

Yes, such a concept would mean that extremely few women would be able to compete at the Division I varsity level. But as it is, 99% of men cannot compete at this level. Tough luck. The world will not end.

I believe in following Title IX to its absurdity. Treat people of equal ability the same. This means coed sports. Goose/Gander.

I don't know the exact wording of Title IX, but I think the purpose of it isn't focused on creating coed teams. Instead it is supposed to create male and female teams in proportion to the male/female enrollment at a given college (that is, the totall number of athletes should be in the same proportion). That mentality has unjustly resulted in the elimination of hundreds of mens programs across the country.

The fact that some people already get injured, does not mean we should further increase the likelihood that others will. The undeniable physical fact is that women cannot take as much punishment as men. I have known this since playing with my little sister as a child.
This is why many medical professionals recommend that women not be allowed to box - even each other.
It is also true that they are no match for strength, and usually not endurance. That is why women tennis players play only 3 sets vice men's 5. Should we force men to play 3-set matches so that women can play them?? Here's an even better one: Force male weight-lifters to lift no more than 300 lbs, since no woman can lift anymore. Or gee, maybe we could feed the numbers into a computer and give the males some kind of 500 pound "handicap".
It is also a fact that the average woman usually has about 5% more bodyfat than a man (i.e. the typical man is about 21-22% bodyfat depending on age, and the average woman about 26-27%). Of course athletes have lower percent b.f.'s, but the approx. 5% difference still exists.

Sorry, the laws of physics and physiology will not change, no matter how much society wants to "integrate" to the level where it becomes absurd. It always amazes me how society can get carried away with some ideological principle - that is how we end up with "pendulums that swing too far"
-axolotl

Title IX has been perverted (interpreted) to require equal representation among men and women. This was not the original law, just as the original law was not to require coed teams. However, coed teams are much more in-line with Title IX than it's current interpretion. For example, blacks are over represented by a wide margin in major college sports, more so than women were underrepresented (by choice) before the current interpretation was inforced. Regardless, we do not segragate by race.

I don't believe your logic is correct with respect to injury. Most men would be injured if they played in the major contact sports (using your example, most doctors do not approve of boxing). I'm athletic, yet it is likely I would be injuried in Division I football (unless I was the place kicker). However, I do not receive special treatment because of my "genetic inferiority." Most men are in my boat.

Besides, it is the non-contact sports that have been most impacted by Title IX. By and large, women still do not participate in contact sports. Sports such as football remain because they are the money makers for schools. Ironically, their income subsidizes womens athletics.

There is no reason people of equal ability (including the ability to avoid injury) should be treated differently.

I look at how cross country was implemented when I was in high school (late 70's). There was the A team (7 member varsity), B team (7 member jr varsity), and C team (everyone else). It was coed. An occasional girl would run on a school's A team. A few more would be on the B team. Most were on the C team. The point is that athletes were segregated by ability, not sex. Nothing could be more fair.

Lets use your example of weight lifting. A male weight lifter may be able to lift 300 pounds and a female weight lifter may be able to lift only 200 pounds. Hence, we have separate events for women. The point is, I'm a man. I cannot lift 300 pounds, yet I might be able to lift only 200 pounds. I'm as genetically inferior as the woman, yet she receives special consideration solely because she is a woman.

99% of men are too genetically inferior to participate in Division I athletics. We tell these men "tough luck." Clearly, genetics and biology are not issues when it comes to sports. The issue is who is the fastest, strongest, best. Period.

It is not logical to ignore genetics and biology in one situation(99% of men can't play Division I football - too bad for them) and then use genetics and biology as an argument for separate men and women's teams (99.9% of women can't play Division I football - lets give them special treatment).

What do you mean when you say,

"Lets use your example of weight lifting. A male weight lifter may be able to lift 300 pounds and a female weight lifter may be able to lift only 200 pounds. Hence, we have separate events for women. The point is, I'm a man. I cannot lift 300 pounds, yet I might be able to lift only 200 pounds. I'm as genetically inferior as the woman, yet she receives special consideration solely because she is a woman."?

Are you justifying separate men's and women's teams only in SOME sports, such as weightlifting? (If so, you contradict your earlier post saying ALL teams should be coed).
Or are you simply saying some people can lift more weight than others?? Or are you saying that slightly inferior men should be allowed on the women's weightlifting team? I made exactly that last point in my initial post.

I don't think anyone has the "right" to be injured, with an improved likelihood and extent of it, by individuals INHERENTLY tougher than they are, in the name of equality. Saying that some men get injured anyway, because they are not as tough as the people who injure them, doesn't seem to me to be that convincing of an argument..in fact it essentiallly buttresses MY argument, since you are thereby admitting that less-tough people are MORE likely to get injured - and women are less tough (after all, one of the biggest obligations of sports, especially in college, is to minimize injuries). And the fact that, again, medical professionals have SPECIFICALLY come foreward to address the women's boxing issue is notable.

Here's yet another scenario to add to my previous list: what would be your reaction if you found out that, a couple days after a brutal boxing match between two women, one woman took a great number of body punches which in turn "killed" a fetus which was not known at the time of the match to exist, i.e. resulted in a spontaneous abortion (birth control pills have been known to fail)? If I follow your logic thus far, you are going to say something like, "well, fetuses get killed anyway.." (Note: I myself do not have a specific position on the abortion issue, and that wouldn't be the point anyway).

And another: if women start competing in men's sports like football and wrestling, it seems to me that illicit use of steroids, testosterone and human growth hormone, etc. (by the women) would skyrocket. I have seen more than a few women at the gym (assumedly bodybuilders) who if they didn't have tits, honest to God you would think they're a man - even their voice is like a man..gross!!.

(this is a good discussion isn't it:)

-Axolotl