The Guardian - AFL weight restrictions 'body shame women'

I posted a link to this article at the end of the other HM thread. This bit stood out for me:

I’ve already spoken to a number of friends of mine, all cis women, about this part of the policy, and to a person their responses have been the same. The first question is always: “why does a panel of men get to decide if a woman is too big or too heavy to play football?” The irony is we know full well that our society would never tolerate a panel of women deciding if a man’s body was too small to play football

Firstly, why do these female “friends” of Hannah’s assume the deciding panel is all male? Where does it say that? Who is on the panel? Or is HM assuming that women couldn’t possibly be on the panel. And it’s not “ironic” that a panel would decide that a man’s body is too small [note the lack of cis or trans before man ] because that is not something that is even an issue. A panel of women deciding a man’s body is too big for women’s AFL would be very appropriate though.

I don’t think HM understands irony. I find it ironic that a 100kg+ person who wants to smash into women thinks it’s a policy that restricts that from happening to be harmful.

Someone posted about two different body types for men in these Aussie sports earlier this week. Mouncey is on the bigger side of the two types, yes.

I will go find it.

Even comparing individuals of the same height and weight, a male will still have greater upper body strength, denser bones that are harder to break, etc. So even if every woman in AFL was 110 kilos it would still be a bad idea to let Mouncey play with them.

It's an even worse idea given the size differential.

So HM is way above the average weight even for a man?!

"Other sports, such as boxing, have weight categories for similar reasons.

Ms Mouncey ostensibly weighs 110kg. Serena Williams, surely one of the most powerful female athletes competing currently weighs, according to the internet, somewhere between 70 - 85kgs, some 25kgs less than an average man.

It would be very unlikely that a female AFL player would be anywhere near the height and weight of Ms Mouncey."

The average weight for an Australian man is 85.9kg. Tennis isn't AFL. Neither is boxing. Compare like for like, with correct numbers, or the comparisons are irrelevant. Female rugby players frequently hit the 85 - 95kg mark. There is no upper weight limit in the mens' game either, hence the strong possibility that a 85kg fly half could get tackled by a 130kg+ prop.

Guarding male egos since at least that ridiculous article about Cologne!

Eh? I thought it was more a case of the Guardian defending their pro immigration stance by turning a blind eye to the less savoury individuals taking advantage of Merkle’s open border disaster and them not willing to admit that all new comers to Germany were not doctors and engineers as promised but instead hundreds of thousands of men with less then enlightened views putting women at a risk.

On the flip side, the weight categories actually could allow transwomen to play appropriately.

I’ve written about the horror of playing rugby against massive TW and the multiple injuries it caused. However, I also have a couple of trans students who are lighter and smaller framed than me. They could quite happily play women’s rugby and be of no advantage.
Rather than ban all TW, weight categories seems like an eminently sensible approach.
Re. NZ rugby: since weight categories were introduced, they have become the world’s best because the fat kid isn’t pigeon-holed as a prop from age 11. The big kids learn to play skilful positions. Equally, a late developer who is a talented but skinny runt aged 11 and then flourishes physically aged 17 is kept on rather than lost to injury/disappointment.

Yes and the use of cis. FFS!

Tbh I've noticed that the Guardian hardly allows comments on any of its opinion articles any more.

Because they know that the many opinions that form their editorial line are becoming increasingly untenable so instead they try and distract their dwindling readership by opening comments on soft ball click bait articles instead.

When all the comment moderation in the world still doesn't result in your readership failing to notice that your opinion writers are talking absolute shite.

Definitely a vote of confidence that their opinion writers are generally sensible people who their readers will mostly agree with, that.

Always about Hannah and her demands and never a thought for women. Fascinating isn't it?

Isn't it.

Constant use of the cis word.

Guarding male egos since at least that ridiculous article about Cologne!

Ironic that it's called The Guardian.

Tbh I've noticed that the Guardian hardly allows comments on any of its opinion articles any more.

Definitely a vote of confidence that their opinion writers are generally sensible people who their readers will mostly agree with, that.

HM really is an arsehole.

What an appallingly whiny poor me article.

This ruling would be to stop you fucking injuring women you ignorant selfish dick.

Much like if I decided I fancied joining an under 8s rugby team, there’s a distinct possibility I would seriously injure someone.

Cut the crap, Guardian.

‘Massive Male-bodied person demands legal right to endanger women on grounds of equality’

For fucks sake. Why did we even bother separating sexes for sport in the first place?

Oh, because Male bodies are, on average, bigger, denser and stronger? Not because female athletes want pink uniforms?

There are sports that don’t have sexed categories, because there is no advantage for male bodies - equestrian sports.

Funny isn't it how they never open comments on pro-trans articles: so they'd get shown up for the load of bullshit they are.
Tbh I've noticed that the Guardian hardly allows comments on any of its opinion articles any more.

Comments aren’t open as usual on this subject.

I used to make sure I bought a copy of the guardian every week to support it. I don’t buy it any more.

FFS, The New Zealand rugby union many years ago started to divide junior rugby by weight rather then by age group to counter the risk posed by the kids of Pacific island heritage who generally physically matured way quicker then non PI kids. Something had to be done because parents were strangely enough not so keen on seeing their 50kg kid get steam rolled by a 75kg ball of muscle and the smaller kids unsurprisingly stopped playing the game.

Just a shame Hannah doesn’t reciprocate and not wish women harm.

Co-opting loads of issues there to try to make an argument. Shocking

If it wasn't in The Guardian, I'd have assumed that was a case of a 'give Hannah enough rope and she'll hang herself'* article, as it would peak trans the masses in any other paper.

• a well-known phase or saying, MNHQ. I wish Hannah no harm.

The overall size being a problem is the one factor Mouncey hasn't already been able to get the association to give ground on, so obvious that's the new focal point, because "no" will never be an acceptable response when Mouncey wants something.