To think that women don't just need to try a bit harder in order to beat men at sport?

[SportySpice18]

From this Woman's Hour clip:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06tmhr3

The first interviewee is arguing that initially transwomen (ie males who identify as being women) should compete in women's sport (which is already happening) but that ultimately single-sex sports should be abolished and sport should become gender neutral. This would mean all men competing against women (if any women qualify) and sports teams not just being mixed sex but not taking into account sex differences (e.g. at the moment a mixed-sex sports team normally has to have 50% women playing but in 'gender neutral' sports, the strongest players would be selected, irrespective of their sex.)

The argument put forward is that women only perform at a lower level than men in sport because we psychologically cap our performance and don't try as hard as men.

AIBU to think that this is a load of old b and will result in women missing out on the opportunity to play fair, competitive sport? Women in sports, particularly at the top level, work their a off and display incredible determination and skill - but they cannot outpower men.

Men have longer limbs, greater lung capacity, bigger muscles and a different shaped pelvis (shaped for efficient movement rather than childbirth) to name but a few differences. I play sports and, when I've played (socially) against men the sheer power can be overwhelming even when they are technically a less skilled player.

Surely, it is obvious that refusing to acknowledge physical sex differences, far from being open-minded and progressive, is massively detrimental to women?

Men have been competing in sport much longer than women and their bodies has evolved to have an edge due to this

maybe in 30 years

Holy crap. You obviously do not understand evolution in the slightest.

Yanbu at all op, I agree with you. Glad I didn't listen to it, I probably would have thrown the radio out the window in frustration.

Men have been competing in sport much longer than women and their bodies has evolved to have an edge due to this.

Nope sorry competitive sport has been around for a few hundred years - in evolutionary terms this is nothing. Men's bodies have evolved differently to women's but not because of sport. Pregnancy, childbirth, breast feeding and different roles in primitive society yes but not sport.

I looked up the records on a previous occasion that this was discussed and the women's track world records are all between 10-15% slow than men's from sprints to marathons. All rather uniform if it was just a matter of effort - you would think some woman somewhere of the years would have jolly well tried just that bit harder and perhaps reduced a gap to 5%.

The current performance ratio for top atheletes in running and swimming is 90%. The gap has closed over the last century, but that's quite the gap, and it can't be explained by cultural and social factors alone.

Serena and Venus Williams claimed they could beat any man outside the top 200, and:

Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[52] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager".[53][52] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[54] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[55] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[56] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[52]

Aside from him being a complete dick, it shows the fundamental difference biological sex makes. The US and Australian national soccer teams were both beaten by U15 boys teams (admittedly in friendlies).

So, if even if we imagine a world in which women's sport was equally funded - women athletes were admired and supported as much as the men - there is simply no way that women would be able to partcipate in most non-segregated high-level sports.

If we look at transwomen, there isn't much evidence in, but let's say any man in the top 500 male tennis players transitioned; there is every chance, even with HRT, that they would be the world champion straight away.

Serena Williams says Andy Murray would beat her in straight sets every time.

She'd be lucky to take a point off him. It's not just that she'd lose 6-0 6-0 6-0, it's that most of those games would be to love as well, and the points would mostly be double faults.

In the case of Connors v Navratilova, Connors only had one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into some of the doubles court (ie, could serve less accurately and force Connors to cover a larger area). He was 40, while she was at the peak of her powers. He won 7-5 6-2. Under standard rules, she would have lost far more heavily.

I’m excited to know that it will now be perfectly safe for me to play rugby against males, and all I need to do is try a little harder.

Smashing.

Bertrand and not just that he'd beat her in straight sets, but that it would take him less than half an hour to do so.

(I also believe that Chris Evert, when she was world No 1, wouldn't train against her husband John Lloyd (considerably lower down the men's rankings) because he was far too powerful for her.)

One of the most powerful women athletes in the world. I think I'll take her word for it rather than this idiot's.

Setting aside the glaringly obvious basic physiological differences...

There is also a psychological/sociological element. Men are generally socialised to be more aggressive, competitive, dominant etc.
Women are generally not. This means women can often fade into the background in a number of ways.

I noticed this is a work event where we did an escape room. There were 4 women and 2 men. The two men dominated the whole process, taking "charge" of any items we found, and physically leading the group etc. The women were mostly having fun, but the men were properly competing to win (you are meant to escape before the time runs out, so you can 'lose'). They were almost competing against each other as well.

the women's track world records are all between 10-15% slow than men's from sprints to marathons

And the interesting thing is that the curve of performance over time looks similar. Men start training scientifically (within the limits of the era) between the wars, and there is a rapid improvement in times. It's then diminishing returns, and it doesn't look like there is much scope for improvement. Systematic training by women starts in the 1960s, and there is then a similar, but faster, improvement as they leveraged the training techniques for men.

It's also interesting that both men and women's sport were a doping cesspit in the 1980s, men's slightly less as dope testing was slightly less farcical. However, women's times set by obvious dopers have been remarkably durable, and the women's records in almost all swimming, sprinting and middle distance are either 1980s doping or "controversial". The men's records from the same era have mostly been bettered by athletes who are probably clean, and indeed athletes who were probably clean were setting records in the 1980s (Coe and Ovett, say).

(This argument collapses in the face of road cycling, where there hasn't been an unquestionably clean TdF winner since the early 1980s, but this is casual chatter, not a thesis).

The conclusion I reach is that testosterone and anabolic steroids are more effective, ie have a larger performance differential, in women than in men. That means that in clean athletics men are starting closer to their boosted optimum than women, which means that clean women are never going to get close to clean men. Other interpretations are available.

I noticed this is a work event where we did an escape room. There were 4 women and 2 men. The two men dominated the whole process, taking "charge" of any items we found, and physically leading the group etc. The women were mostly having fun, but the men were properly competing to win (you are meant to escape before the time runs out, so you can 'lose'). They were almost competing against each other as well.

I kinda want to know what happened in the end now @ShotsFired lol

Games of skill like bowls, or curling, ought to be unisex (maybe they are? I don't know)
Games of strength, not unisex.

We won our freedom, @KissedByFire and then we all went for a delicious meal.

...but who knows how many teams are locked in the bowels of the escape room, never to be seen again!

Another element to take into account, along with different body size, muscle mass etc. is max V02 (which could well be influenced by the other two measures).
AFAIK, in all measures, male athletics have a higher V02 max than females, they can get more oxygen to their muscles than women, hence they will have a greater power output. One reason for that is men tend to have higher haemoglobin levels in their blood, and this is true across many mammals, it is a physiological difference.

My husband is slightly shorter and significantly lighter than me but his grip strength alone is crushing. I think height and weight are the last things we should use to segregate by, they are virtually meaningless in the scheme of things.

Muscle mass, muscle type, tendon strength and how securely they are attached, blood and oxygen volumes, the bodies ability to process lactic acid, skeletal stability, centre of balance etc are all factors in athletic performance and all significantly differ between males and females. Mixed sex competition will end female competitive sports in a generation and render contact sports life threatening. It's a no from me.

I heard that interview on Womas hour and it made me SO angry. That woman Beth something ? FFS. Paula Radcliff, other feamle athletes just 'dont try hard enough' FGS ...

makes me seethe

Sport should absolutely be gender neutral, IMO. But not sex neutral.

Although, I can see the arguments for not sex segregating sports. We don't segregate sports on race, or height, even though these confer huge advantages in some sports. Why should sex be different.

An interesting list...

Mixed sex competition will end female competitive sports in a generation

And it's noticeable the whole debate is about natal men competing in women's events. Natal women are perfectly welcome to compete in men's events in many cases. For example, top-flight professional female golf players intermittently attempt to play in men's open competitions, for which they are eligible; they never make the cut, or get even close to it. Oddly enough, their driving is about 15% shorter, in line with most other differences.

the women's track world records are all between 10-15% slow than men's from sprints to marathons

And the interesting thing is that the curve of performance over time looks similar.

And the gap is broadly the same in the events women have competed in for 100+ years than those that were only added to the female program in the later part of the 20th century. If it was down to a lack of practise, development of technique, small numbers of participants etc I would except the gap to be smaller in long standing events than in those that have only seen serious competition for 40 years.

It is so bloody rude to suggest that all the hard working female athletes that have pushed boundaries, broken records, fought to be taken seriously, made tough choices re having children etc should have just tried a bit harder. Especially as female sport is starting to gain more recognition, attract better coverage and more money. That gap was finally starting to close and BAM women's sport is facing being wiped out.

ReflectentMonatomism so many good points – nurture and s nature together will certainly lead to an advantage and hard to unscramble what bit did what.

Interesting comparisons with University - DH was first in his entire wider family - they've been tracked back and down by family friend - to ever get to University where we met – our children just take it a natural thing to go.

Men are generally socialised to be more aggressive, competitive, dominant etc. Women are generally not.

My children are all quiet competitive usual with academic things and things around school. They tend to go above and beyond with tasks and work hard to improve and their teachers are aware of this. Yet mention my DS is competitive and teacher agree mention my DDs are and there is surprise and shock - it's really odd.

I’m wondering how much that is playing into the poor careers advice she’s been getting to aim for low status low paid jobs vaguely related to her stated area of interest. I suspect it’s partly the low attaining area, DH was warned of Univeristy at all - he got 5 As at A-level, but I do wonder if she's not supposed to be ambitious as well.

We don't segregate sports on race, or height, even though these confer huge advantages in some sports.

Boxing is segregated on weight. Similarly other contact sports like wrestling. Weightlifting is segregated on weight. Both are proxies for height.

Especially as female sport is starting to gain more recognition, attract better coverage and more money. That gap was finally starting to close and BAM women's sport is facing being wiped out.

Coincidence, you reckon?

Boxing is segregated on weight. Similarly other contact sports like wrestling. Weightlifting is segregated on weight. Both are proxies for height.

Yes but these are in the minority and are more for the sake of safety than fairness.
How often do white people get into the 100m finals? How often do black people win swimming medals? How often do you see short people win the high jump, or indeed any running races? How often do tall people win gymnastics competitions?

Don't get me wrong, I really value women's sport. I think it's incredibly important societally. But let's not deny that there are plenty of other physical characteristics we could arbitrarily create categories on that might make for more "fair" competition.

CleanBee I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but the timing is quite something isn't it?

Boxing is segregated on weight. Similarly other contact sports like wrestling. Weightlifting is segregated on weight. Both are proxies for height

Even non contact rowing has introduced light weight categories (again largely a proxy for height).

Where height/weight are dominant factors there often are categories not just to keep people safe but also to ensure competition. In other sports having certain body type will lend it self to a certain position or aspect of the sport (e.g. forwards v backs in rugby or sprinters v distance runners v throwers in athletics).
There are also age categories in many sports below and above ages at which which people are at their physical peak. Lets scrap the veterans category and tell the over 40's and under 18's to just work a bit harder ehhh?

When did the world turn to which bullshittery? Why are facts and logic ignored?