Mixed gender race at sports day

[littlegreydevil]

Hi, long time lurker but first post and I’m aware I am stepping in with a particularly hot topic but here goes…
Our primary school organised its annual sports day this week and for unknown reasons, decided to mix boys and girls for the sprints. Teams are usually mixed genders for the less competitive activities like the sack race, egg and spoon race, etc. but this is the first time they’ve mixed genders for the competitive races. Of course this has resulted in only 2 girls making the podium across all the year groups and both “only” hitting third place.
I’m really bothered by this as I thought sports day was about celebrating sporting achievements and encouraging kids to enjoy sports (I know this can be disputed but that’s a whole other debate) and today, I have watched a ream of very sporty, very talented female runners lose to their male counterparts and I can’t see how that fits in the ethos of sports day.
I am planning to speak to the head to question their motives in making this odd decision.
imo sport is gendered for a reason and it should be about equity rather than equality. You might be able to argue that younger age groups could be mixed as supposedly their physical ability is the same up to age 7 or 8 (need to find the references for this) but from year 2 onwards, it doesn’t work anymore. Girls start going through puberty from as young as 9 so by that point, it should be gendered.
For full transparency, I have 2 children, a boy and a girl, neither of which is talented in athletics (they are very good in other sports) and usually come in at a solid bottom 3rd place so this is not about my kids being slighted.
If you were me, what questions would you ask from the head and, seeing as they have a track record of being quite obstinate, what arguments would you produce?

The long and the short of equality in sport comes down to 'equal opportunity' not 'equality = the best of all humans regardless of sex'.

Equality in sport is about female athletes having access to participate in sports events where all the competitors qualify to participate in that specific category that has been set aside for fairness and safety.

Categories are set up for sex, age, and whether a particular disability needs to be accounted for, experience sometimes with novice vs professional, and where needed weight.

These are more equity solutions as I keep saying. But in doing so, it means that each group has 'equal opportunity' to win.

Those attempting to destabilise the system that works equitably with 'let's split it into even further categories of nothingness' aren't posting in good faith. Those solutions would be accepted if they are needed and they are. Hence you get:

Female, masters (40 - 45 years old), visually impaired, novice category of a sport.

That is all that is needed to ensure a wide range of competitors and if some are shorter they may have other attributes that can still mean they do well or place.

Often people do what is now known as the 'Phelps' argument. Where they seem to think that if a female competitor matched Phelps' attributes that female would win that swimming event. But this is ridiculous because no female with all Phelp's attributes would have beaten Phelps. In the distance future, with new training techniques it may be possible, but not now with everything replicated just sex differences.

Because that is material reality.

'Equality' doesn't always mean women 'lifting the same weights as men' in a job role.

It means that women can still lift almost as much manually, may take a fraction more time, or may need to use a piece of equipment that would even lower the risk of a man injuring themselves at work. And meanwhile, that woman will contribute as much skill to the other components of the role as any other man. It means that a woman is not discriminated against because she has a female sexed body where a role doesn't specifically require a male sexed body. Because you CAN already in law discriminate against a person due to their sexed body if there is a legally recognised reason to.

Often 'Equality' is very misunderstood in the workplace and in sports.

Helleofabore Thank you, really interesting posts and food for thought. (I wish this topic was covered in at least this much detail at secondary school.)

Thanks Sylvia.

I do have a very varied CV if I listed every job that I have ever had but the funny thing is, that it really seems like one poster in particular has a very prejudiced view of who might ever write from a feminist perspective. Forgetting that MN is full of women who come from all walks of life.

Like that poster emphasising 'blue collar'! I laughed, because I also grew up on a farm and literally shovelled shit as a child (I 'dug holes' for a living in my 20s). It is like people's prejudices lead them to make the most bizarre claims. Just because I did that shovelling of shit though doesn't make me any better or any worse than any other human. It may give me a very different perspective on what girls and women can achieve and what they are fully capable of and the limitations of the female body.

But second wave feminists were always fully aware of the differences in female bodies, they simply fought to make them irrelevant for the huge huge majority of work place employment decisions and for sport.

There is also a lot of confusion out there about 'biological essentialism'. Biological essentialism is like saying 'you are a women, you can only do these things'. The feminists today that are still grounded in second wave feminists have been portrayed as holding that regressive belief. This is false, but it has spread through groups in society who wish to discredit feminists.

What feminists believe, who are grounded in second wave feminism, is that female people have a sexed body that is female, however, the roles they choose for themselves are not dependant on that body. They may have some limitations where they don't match male bodies, but that doesn't mean that those females cannot achieve the same things. Well provided particular reproductive system requirements are not involved.

@Helleofabore fabulous and articulate comment. I’m always frustrated by people coming with the “well people with long arms have an advantage in swimming” type argument or “let separate everyone by weight”. I’ve never been able to respond as clearly as you have. I totally agree with your comments about “equality” too. So often people use it to mean everyone has or is treated the exact same, and that’s way too basic.

I went to primary school (not in the UK) in the 80s and it was ALWAYS girls and boys separated on sports day. Always. It still is. I don't think it has ever even occurred to any of the schools or the state government where I live to have boys and girls compete together. Obviously that would be massively unfair. No wonder girls in the UK abandon sports because of their unfair treatment at primary school.

As to @Helleofabore I absolutely admire you. I really do. You kick arse, take names, and bring receipts every single time. You are a very stronger debater with facts and evidence. Literally no one can ever beat you, and you've made mince meat out of @AuntieHippy and @wholivesondrurylane . Their posts are hyperbolic, ridiculous and childish grasping at straws and flailing about whataboutery. No evidence, no facts, not logic. Your posts are measured, fair, sensible, based on common sense, logic, facts and statistics. I always learn a lot from your posts here and on FWR and have tonnes of links you've posted stored. I would hate to be on the losing side to you, as the two absurd ideological fools named above have found out what that would be like. You're a credit to this forum.

By the way drurylane

Would you care to explain what you mean by this?

"I won't bother discussing your nonsensical and completely wrong points about women in the army, you are missing the point spectacularly."

What point am I missing spectacularly? Please point it out clearly without derisory 'asides' and address the erroroneous information.

Are you saying that the 'Army' (which Army?) now deploys in wartime with a range of packs and that every one is now matched to a pack that is relative to their body mass? How is that logistically managed in war time, please?

Or are you discussing fitness tests?

Even the advertised fitness requirements for the RAF state:

"Pre-Joining Fitness Test"

"The test is called the Pre-Joining Fitness Test (PJFT). To pass, you’ll need to run 1.5 miles (2.4km) on a treadmill within a set time. Then you’ll need to do a minimum number of press-ups and sit-ups within a minute. The time limit for the run and the number of press-ups and sit-ups will depend on your age and gender."

https://recruitment.raf.mod.uk/fitness-in-the-raf

The site then lists them (useful for @AuntieHippy ) as well. This is just 'pre-joining', if you have something for active members already in Service, please do post it.

Here is one example.

Women aged 15-16 need to run 2.4 km within 13.54 minutes
Men aged 15-16 need to run 2.4km within 11.39 minutes

I can post each and every fitness test qualification here from the pre-joining page if you would like to see it. I mean, I could argue that that 'gender' should be 'sex' but well, it is for the RAF to decide that.

The point being even right now, the RAF, specifies a minimum fitness that is dependent on SEX.

So, please do point out where I was in error, I would like to know so I stop spreading misinformation. Or perhaps you are in error with your accusation of 'nonsense and completely wrong points'....

Thanks everyone.

It is no secret. I have a few traits that require me to go back to original documents and studies to understand what others are saying. I need to understand and find facts to back up the truth of what they are saying. Hence I do read studies and links that posters post. Sometimes posters post studies that don't show what they think they show, but I go through them and I learn so much. I post the links on the 'break it down thread' as my memory is getting worse with age.

If you are interested, there are some remarkable studies that I have posted there in that particular thread. For me it is all about finding the truth.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?latest=0

I started to store things there (as it was already an 'archive' thread by that stage) from about 25 or so. Others used to do it too, but some of those have been banned.

The school should make deciaions that are best for the children. Racing against boys disadvantages all the girls (traditionally underrepresented in sport) in Juniors. So it is a poor decision for about 50% of the school's students, and particularly the 'middle finishers', who go from middle in single sex races (I did ok!) to bottom in mixed sex (I'm rubbish at running).

Who benefits from mixed sex races? Not the girls. Not the boys. The students questioning their gender identity? That's possible. There should be a girls' category (by sex, not identity) and an open category (for anyone).

Here you go @AuntieHippy

I found something on the British Army site that you might be interested in.

Knee and back problems are the most common medical reason that recruits drop out of army training.

The risk is highest if you’re aged 16 or 17, because your bones are still growing and will struggle to cope with running long distances with a pack on your back, especially if you’re not very fit now. You’re better off waiting until you’re older before signing up – when you’ll be stronger.

Seems to me that some employers recognise biological reality when setting their employment policies.

I have not checked the new recruitment fitness standards for British Army against the RAF but it seems to be perhaps now discriminatory against female people in comparison. It does mean that female people need to be relatively stronger and fitter than the male recruits.

https://beforeyousignup.info/joining/army-fit/

For all jobs in the army, you’ll need to be able to:

• Run 2km (1.2 miles) in a maximum of 11 minutes and 15 seconds (11 minutes 30 seconds if you’re joining aged between 16 and 17.5). For the infantry and some other jobs, you’ll need to finish in 10 minutes and 15 seconds.
• Throw a 4kg ball a distance of 2.9 metres, while sitting with your back to a wall (or 3.1 metres for the infantry and some other jobs).
• Pull a fixed bar upwards with a force of 46kg while standing (that’s about two full jerrycans). Or 76kg for the infantry (the weight of a man with a medium build), or 94kg (a man with heavy build) if the job you want involves heavy lifting.

These are the standards for getting in to the army. To pass training you’ll need to achieve a lot more than this.

The Royal Navy still seems to use a Pre-joining Fitness Test of running 2.4 km and males need to do it in 12 minutes 16 secs and females need to do it in 14 minutes 29 secs.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/joining/get-fit-to-join/stages-and-standards/royal-navy-ratings/pjft

Very happy to look through the old British Army specs if someone has them, I couldn't find them, but I am in a rush to get to work.

The above is for drurylane.

Always been mixed sex races at our primary school but separate podiums for boys and girls - no different to many adult sporting events where everyone starts together but there are separate podiums by sex and age cat.

That seems a great way to do it.

Isn't that how parkrun is done?

It's how all mass participation races are done. You don't see separate men's and women's (or age grouper) starts for the Marathon. Same for triathlon (at the non-elite level).

Oh, and I should add also standard in cycling up to U12. Mixed sex start but separate podiums/prizes for boys and girls.

“Clear hatred of males…” - it’s not clear to me at all from these posts that @Helleofabore hates males. Which comments in particular lead you to make this sweeping statement, @wholivesondrurylane ?

The same imagination that led to the assertion that I am a 'competitive parent', and that I must have had a child beaten by a boy some time to hate them so much.

There has been a slew of fucking weird and bizarre accusations from this poster. It seems that anyone who disagrees with them is to be vilified or demonised some how.

I will wait though, I have asked for some information so maybe we might get some mature discussion.

We seem to be saying the same thing.

I have just got home from my warehouse job where I lift things, and your post is absolute bollocks from start to finish.

Either you have never even sat through a mandatory Health and Safety in the Workplace session, or you had the worst trainer ever.

I will try and reply at greater length later, after I've had enough biscuits to prepare myself. It may require two packets.

Bleeding hell!

Our school has split sex sprinting races from the very start (reception) they also have separate boys/girls 400m races. All the fun races are mixed and that seems fair enough to me.

Always been mixed in every school over the 17 years my various dc have attended. 6 schools between them . Infants, juniors, seniors.

Never been an issue it wouldn't cross my mind to seperate them

Let's hypothetically imagine Helleofabore is right

I found this really interesting neighbourhood. It was like all the industrial law changes in the past few decades magically disappeared and never happened!!!

Gosh.... blimey... all hypothetical is it?

Anything that is a proxy for 90% of the blue collar jobs out there

And is it still referred to as 'blue collar'? It all seems very classist. But then I never gave much thought to my 'class', maybe that is the problem.

There really was so much to comment on in that post, but not much was relevant to this thread. But still, it seems that some posters are still reading and thinking about why sex matters in the instances where it really matters.

I do want an answer to my question to Hippy whether they believed a male child of the same age could overpower a female child and whether Hippy thinks that girls should be taught that they can overpower male people when needed if they just try hard enough.....

The only point I'd be happier with mixed races is in a small school or unbalanced year where there are just not enough girls (or boys) for a sensible race. Split the podiums but let the girls compete with someone if there's only 2 or 3 in the year!

This is also a suggestion for your discussion @littlegreydevil

The more I think about it, the more that I think some posters have misunderstood sex essentialism. And that they think that understanding the limits of the female body and the specific needs of a female body that are different to the male body is essentialism.

With that misunderstanding is one that also is a misunderstanding of 'discrimination. Discrimination is not WRONG when it is used when it is used appropriately and the word itself is not either negative or positive. However there is 'positive discrimination' and 'negative discrimination'.

There seems a lot of polarised thinking, or maybe it is absolutist thinking. Either way, there is a lot of 'good' and 'bad' thinking rather than acknowledging material reality and how the world currently works. The portrayal of women needing accommodations as being a terrible thing as Hippy seems to have portrayed it, is really regressive thinking.

And they think their thinking is 'progressive'. When it is actually putting girls and women in harmful situations, and situations with high risk of injury and damage.

It is completely upside down.