Feminists against sex segregation in sports

[Tandora]

AIBU to share a different perspective on a subject that seems to be almost entirely taken for granted on mumsnet? This is not something I have a definite opinion on myself (although I am against sex testing and I fully support the rights of trans women and women with differences in sex development to compete alongside other women in sporting competitions at all levels).

However I have found it really upsetting the degrading way that people have been speaking recently about top/ elite female athletes; denigrating their sporting prowess, and portraying them as weak, feeble and helpless, particularly in the wake of this boxing match controversy.

I started looking into opinions on the issue, starting with a search on “feminists against sex segregation in sport”. I came across this really interesting article.

AIBU to share?

journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/3150/galley/19983/view/

I suggest you read and listen to Ross Tucker about just why the things you have suggested, height, weight, hormones will not work.

This information is out there for the reading. But to read it, you have to read widely and not just those sources you find acceptable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930971/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8477683/

No she was a bit busy getting her overnight PhD in Developmental Biology

https://www.drstacysims.com/

Assuming you are a woman, I'd use the old term feMRA, or TRA, which amounts to the same thing.

Argh.

I've read some of the article.

None of the 'sex is a spectrum' people ever say the numbers. Well over 99% of girls menstruate on a normal timescale for example. No boy has ever menstruated, or has had the equipment to menstruate. Talking about a spectrum or making statements about 'some' women having XY chromosomes etc is deliberately misleading. The real picture is of two sexes with easily defined characteristics, with an incredibly tiny number of variations from the norm within each sex.

As for the history, yes of course sexism had a huge and non-linear impact on girls' and women's ability to be active, and to excel physically. I competed to a reasonably high level in a power sport and I saw plenty of this close up. All.sorts of lies and nonsense has been said about active and competitive women. None of this invalidates physical competition for women, quite the opposite.

I think what I object to most in the article is the underlying subconscious assumption that women's sport would be a lot better if there were men involved. That's really what they're thinking - that physical activity that only involves women is genuinely worth less, and will be worth more the more it looks like men's sport.

I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that more mixed competition could take place. All.sports where at least part of the strength element is provided by mechanical equipment for example. It's noticeable that these sports tend to be much more sexist than sex-segregated sports (Formula 1 for example) or show a worrying lack of female champions (eg horse sports). But while the numbers are so unbalanced - most sports have far more male participants than female - to be arguing for less female visibility is not a positive imo.

The article is right that most sport, especially that which makes the most money, is designed for men's bodies. But a) not always and b) so what. I love watching women's tennis, women's football, women's rowing, women's athletics. Also women's gymnastics. I don't care that the women's times, serve speeds etc are different. The lives and actions of women are worth our attention on their own.

Why are you so uncomfortable with giving women a fair chance? Do you prefer watching them being beaten to a pulp by men?

Yes, obviously.

No she was a bit busy getting her overnight PhD in Developmental Biology

I mean this is very childish

No more childish than you repeating ad nauseum that you are a feminist when you are nothing of the sort.

https://scholar.google.co.nz/citations?user=xrYMd00AAAAJ&hl=en

Academic research papers published by Dr Stacy Sims

Ha ha me too!

We're all sex fascists, flat-terfers and we're soooo meeeean!

As an aside flat-terfer made me imagine a cartoon-style 2D person, which did make me laugh 😂

Excellent. I suggest readers go back and read the remnants of your posts on threads over the last few days that you have had deleted and the remnants of the posts from the deleted posts of those you supported.

Thanks for highlighting that.

I don’t actually think you thought that through at all.

Harmful gender stereotypes?
As in men being stronger than women which isn't in fact a stereotype but a fact.

😆😆😆

I agree with a lot of this (apart from first paragraph which I won’t get into here) .

I didn’t see the article as presuming that female-only sport is worth less because it’s female only, but rather acknowledging that that does seem to be the general perception… Women’s sports are viewed as less interesting and important etc..

I suggest readers go back and read the remnants of your posts on threads over the last few days that you have had deleted and the remnants of the posts from the deleted posts of those you supported

You can't be serious!

No more childish than you repeating ad nauseum that you are a feminist when you are nothing of the sort

Oh yes. I remember the ‘flat-terfers’ and well as the sex fascists.

"Women’s sports are viewed as less interesting and important etc.."

I hope you now recognise that getting rid of women's sports is not the answer to this issue.

Women’s sports are viewed as less interesting and important etc.
Not by the women here.
Just yourself and people like Joey Barton.

OP, what did you think of the graphics in @Theeyeballsinthesky 9.15 or thereabouts? What is your answer to the fact that Alfred from St. Lucia who won the women's 100m would t even qualify to race in the men's final ? You keep avoiding looking at these examples

@Tandora
Why are you quoting other PP's posts and then repeating what they've said in bold. What is the point of this?