"she wasn’t allowed to take home first place or advance to the state tournament because – you guessed it – she’s a girl.
The event holder, MIAA, said that girls could play in the boys tournament as part of a team, but not as individuals. Basically, Nash was allowed to play so long as her talent was being harnessed to help the boys win. She just wasn’t allowed to win on her own."
Can't help wondering why she didn't just say she identified as a boy. But of course they'd never let it work that way round.
Basically it was both a team and an individual tournament, taking place at the same time. So trophies were awarded to the team who played best AND the best player, but there weren't separate rounds to determine each. The rules allow a girl on a team but not to win the individual competition. Presumably because they never thought it might happen.
Surely the easiest thing would be to introduce a girls trophy as well?
Yes but I can’t help comparing this case to the sprinter (Andrea yearwood??) who identifies as a girl but is having no treatment if I recall correctly. S/he has won several girls high school /college (sorry can’t recall) competitions running against natal girls and is being feted for his achievements (ie being a second string runner who probably wouldn’t beat born boys but who uses his natural physical prowess to beat girls) . It smacks to me of utter hypocrisy
Isn't the sexism here in the reporting rather than the story? It is a "boy's" tournament. This girl was, thanks to the weird rules, playing in the boy's tournament. She plays the best round. Where is the headline; "Shock news, girl scores better than the boys!"? Shame on you, that is not worthy of calling out, why wouldn't she?
The arrangement that girls play in a boy's match is odd but then the separation of tournaments into girl's and boy's is the very root of the oddness. Only picking up on that oddness when women do well is to embed the expectation that their performance is unexpected.