4
What is unnecessary gendered?
(beehaw.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)
AskBeehaw
2003 readers
1 users here now
An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.
In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.
Subcommunity of Chat
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Isn't there a general consesus in sports that testosterone makes a big difference?
I believe that is the common reasoning behind the separate leagues in any sports.
Even if it is completely skill-based, might as well keep it separate for good measure. At least no one will argue the outcome of a match with something as silly as "gender-bias."
No, there's just a pervasive, misogynistic, and deeply hateful idea that men will always defeat women in sports, no matter what, no matter the skill level. Just that men are so much stronger and more capable, that they'll trounce women 100% of the time. It's the idea that a man who has never picked up a tennis racket in his life can walk onto the court with Serena Williams and win, based solely on the fact that he's a man. And people try to hide behind faulty, flawed, and wildly incorrect understandings of science to try to justify it.
And it's just not true.
The reality is, so many male egos are so incredibly fragile, that the idea of losing to a woman is simply inconceivable. So they just never allow the situation to happen.
But since it actually is all skill-based, then there's no reason to have separate gendered teams.
We're not talking "average joe" taking on Serena Williams. It's pro-athletes on both sides.
And in most physical sports, being able to build muscle faster is considered an advantage. Even Serena Williams seems to agree on that point.
And yes, there are a lot of fragile egos in sports. So it makes sense to keep the leagues separate, as I said, it wouldn't do to have professionals cry foul and blame it on genders when they lost. There's enough stupid shit like that already.
Plus, if it turned out that it did make a difference, I don't think it would be as fun for the ones that didn't end up domineering the top placements.
I see where you're coming from (I heard from a friend who heard from a friend) but I guess that depends on who you're asking and what the sport is. Golf is hand-eye coordination, practice and skill. Balls or ovaries, it shouldn't make any difference when it comes to golf.
Fun fact: bowling, pool and darts are also gendered in many leagues. Pretty sure testosterone wouldn't be the deciding factor in the winner in those.
Regarding golf, the PGA is not a gendered league. Women and non-binary individuals are allowed to play in top level events and several women have done so.
https://www.golflink.com/facts_35396_has-a-woman-ever-played-on-the-pga-tour.html
I'm sure to some degree gender impacts opportunity to play golf, but women and girls from families with means do enjoy accessible training and competition these days. Among top non-male players, biology is the greatest limiting factor.
I hesitate to attack women's leagues like the LPGA or WTA. They comes with problems, but also let us watch many of the best athletes in the world compete in their sports. That the world's best female golfers cannot drive as far as male golfers does not diminish their ability to play the game. A good male collegiate golfer can beat an LPGA pro on a typical PGA course setup, the course length of which plays to the college player's strengths, but only through brute force. Women's leagues provide an opportunity for skilled individuals to show their skills.
Those leagues are also important for representation and promoting the game for everyone. If leagues like the LPGA didn't exist, I do not think golf would be as acceptable for women and do not think girls and women would enjoy the access to training, equipment, and competitions they now have. As a result fewer women would reach the heights they do, up to and including playing PGA events.
It's true that in sport gender is often used as a cudgel. However, after getting past blatant sexism, gender in sport is a very complex issue. Separation based on gender comes with some good that should not be dismissed out of hand. It's not on par with something like, "Wet wipes should not be gendered," which is not complex at all.
Cis women generally can't drive as far as men, which is why they play from different tees. I'd guess that's part of the reason they play separately.
Exactly. I'm all for gender equality and not treating trans people like second class citizens, but let's not pretend that gender has nothing to do with all sports. I don't play golf, so I did some looking around on the subject, and it seems like the womens' courses are shorter than the men's, for precisely the reason you describe. And some people think they need to be even shorter, because at the pro level LPGA scores are generally worse than PGA scores, even with the current course length difference. I infer that the technological advances that are affecting sports equipment have a much larger positive effect on the men's game than the women's, so tech is permitting the men to drive longer while not having quite the same effect for women.
I get all this from this USA today article, but it matches what I've read elsewhere:
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/03/16/lpga-golf-course-setups-womens-golf-pga-tour/
Now, with all this said, I think that any decisions to limit sports participation based on gender (and the implications for trans people) should be made by the people who govern the sport itself, because they have the most data, and also the best idea of what good competition looks like in their sport. I don't have any confidence that politicians can make decisions on this in good faith, no matter how many golf courses they own.