4
What is unnecessary gendered?
(beehaw.org)
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.
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.