Question Time right now!

[Seeingadistance]

Prof Robert Winston has just stated very clearly that it is not possible to change sex.

In relation to freedom of speech and Kathleen Stock.

[quote andyoldlabour]Runningupthecurtains

In UK cycling, there is the absolute legend Beryl Burton, who in 1967, in the National 12 Hour time trial championship, set a distance which beat the women's record, but was also further than the men's record set at the same event.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Burton#Record-breaker[/quote]
She's the sort of absolutely exceptional woman of the sort who gets radio plays written about them.

@Blibbyblobby
Why can't it be both? Not everyone can be an elite athlete. Many people simply enjoy participating. That's not a reason to have no elite sports. They have value for the people who do them, the people who watch them, and the people who are inspired by them even if those people can never compete with the elite.

It is both. I was just commenting on the changing attitudes. I think it's interesting that fitness levels and competition has declined and sport has become more about participation for the masses, whilst the focus on the performances at the top (and the amount of resources devoted to them) have increased dramatically.

We can't change this. The point is sport doesn't have a purpose, independent of the actions of billions of people.

Maybe this is somewhat related to attitudes on transwomen. If sport for the masses is more about participation than it used to be, then are people more likely to consider the argument for inclusion persuasive?
Whilst at the other end, the incentive for a competitive edge increases the desire to cheat?

*Yes, only a small number of women can win elite women's sports.

If you add male bodies to women's sport, that small group of people will include fewer, or possibly no, female people, while the number of male people who can win elite sports will increase. Literally, opportunities have been moved from female to male people. There is no way you can cut trans women's inclusion in female sports and not hit that fundamental fact.*

I'm not arguing for trans women in sport or an "open" competition. I'm just pointing out the argument about women being precluded from competing at the highest level wasn't relevant. If I can get a good level of competition it doesn't matter if it's against women or men. If I couldn't hope of achieving the Olympic qualifying time, what difference does it make to me whether there were an "open" Olympics? Should I live vicariously through others?

If you think the cutoff between male and female is unfair and should be shifted in favour of males that is your call, but you must own that it is a decision to take away from female people in favour of male.

I'm not sure what you mean this. I'm not suggesting shifting anything.

@andyoldlabour
I know that there have been a number of female victories in ultra events but I've seen these dismissed as basically anomalies because so few people compete in such challenges. So I wondered if Hoarding had a professional take on it. Could women potential out perform men at extreme distances or is it just a case of 'ahh only one ten million people do it and it turns out that the one in ten million woman that has tried is the very best woman but the one in ten million man is merely rather good and if when more men do it they will post better times/further distances'?

Should I live vicariously through others?

That's the whole point of sport. From neolithic wrestlers, to Roman gladiators and on

[quote Runningupthecurtains]@HoardingSamphireSaurus
I remember, probably about 30 years ago, seeing someone theorise that ultra sports might actually suit female physiology better than male (greater fat reserves etc) and it being dismissed so is it possible there something in that after all?

• Note not that I am suggesting that if this is the case that that would justify men in women's sport.[/quote] I remember hearing that claim about female physiology too. I think it was suggested that higher body fat percentage helped.

I think it might be hard to say much conclusively about male vs female differences in ultras for a couple of reasons. The pool of competitors is much smaller than most sports (as it requires a lot of time and resources and is very hard). Then there are quite significant differences between events. Track, road, trail, extreme heat (Badwater, Marathon de Sables), 100km, 24 hr, several days, multi-stage. So the sample size for each event is much smaller than for normal athletics events.

[quote HoardingSamphireSaurus]@Runningupthecurtains yes, it was hypothesized that the differences in women's overall physical make up could make them significantly better at ultra sports. Body fat%, fatigue rating, pain management etc etc.

Initially it was an interesting hypothesis based on geographical differences between societies - looking at extreme living conditions, altitude, cold, heat etc

Then it was generally dismissed, once the sociology and psychologoists got involved - women wouldn't sacrifice 'being a woman, a mother' for a sport. Then Liz McColgan and others happened.

Then biomechnics and physiology started to change training regimes and more and more women started to get involved in the back room logistics as opposed to being the athlete. Now there is a general acceptance of sexed training regimes and lots of things have changed.

The optimism of women will dominate ultra's has been tempered with a creeping idea of possible parity. That's why there is quite a focus on the women who do win stages, or whole races.

And the increasing phenomenon of women returning to elite sport after giving birth. THAT is causing great ripples at the moment![/quote]
Thanks Hoarding again casting my aging mind way back I think that the person I saw hypothesize about the potential for women to do better in ultra events might have said particularly women that had had a child/ren it was probably in response to someone (maybe Ingrid Kristiansen?) Winning marathons as a mother which seemed to rip up the rule book.

@Runningupthecurtains the jury is out, but there will be a fair few more women winning ultra distances in many events each and every year, I suspect. Not as rare as some still think!

From Japanese women scaling Everest in their 70's, or very quickly (12 hours faster than the previous record set by a Nepalese climber - happened this May) to successful female ultra runners making new research into emotion focussed coping mechanisms really interesting (and yes, the female body's ability to manage the pain of child birth is being used to exlain why many women run for 60 hours on half an hoiurs sleep and ignore injuries to do so).

There just isn't the sample size at the moment. So each individual woman is a miracle, not a sign of change! even women like Ann Trason are seen as a single swallow - she was the woman that probably started the ultra debate in the first place.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Should I live vicariously through others?

That's the whole point of sport. From neolithic wrestlers, to Roman gladiators and on

I actually think I prefer watching good performances to just hoping "my side" wins.

Marathon de Sables you say?

From an overweight 'mum of two' to elye women finishing in the top 20 rankings, women are coming for the Sable!

About 20% of the competitors are women, these days.

And why not? For 10 years, the MARATHON DES SABLES has been mobilizing to have children from 3 to 10 years of age practice sports and to provide literacy classes to women, thanks to its association Solidarité MDS.

elye = elite.

Sorry! Fat arthritic fingers again!

If I can get a good level of competition it doesn't matter if it's against women or men. If I couldn't hope of achieving the Olympic qualifying time, what difference does it make to me whether there were an "open" Olympics?

Fine. But what about those who do want to have a chance of winning.

If two people with average fitness compete, the likelihood is that the male will win. Your talk of how many men will beat elite women's times doesn't make sense unless you are one of those elite women competing at a lower level.

There should be no barriers to a female competing in a non-contact 'open' category sport. But there is also no reason to get rid of any female categories or to make the 'female' category more inclusive for males.

Don't underestimate the power of role models for girls and women.

If society puts any kind of value on winning elite competitions then girls and women should have a fair chance of winning them.

Otherwise the message is that girls and women aren't as valued in society.

I mean we all know that's true but it shouldn't be.

You are spot on TreXX. My area has one of the largest number of girls playing football.

There is very few female coaches (the male coaches are great) but female coaches are dramatically under represented despite there being a sports focused uni nearby.

Women and girls need their own teams and sports and not just be collapsed into any 'open' category. Even at the lowest of levels.

Absolutely @TreXX

Take away the possibility of success and few young girls will feel they are able to buck the trend. Grass roots engagement would plummit. Doubtless many would, again, see this as proof of there being no need for female provision.

Extract

Why should we care about women in sport?

Let’s get active!

What's often forgottenis the importance of being active for the physical, mental and social benefits.

From a young age, girls and women are less active than men in sport and physical activity.

A prime motivator for young girls to be active is to maintain a slim body shape, which perpetuates the idea of a thin body being a ‘fit’ or ‘ideal’ figure. Those who don't conform to this ‘ideal’ body shape face potential stigma and teasing, influencing behaviours and, potentially, involvement in sport and physical activity.

Women participating in sport, especially traditionally masculine sports, challenge rigid gender norms and stereotypes.

Women have disconcertingly high rates ofmental and behavioural conditions. Young women in particular (15-24 years) suffer from conditions such as depression at a higher rate than the general population (30 per cent compared to 20.1 per cent respectively). The number of women living with a mental or behavioural condition is increasing. One avenue to improve mental health wellbeing is through being active. Additionally, the risk of developing chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and and obesity is decreased through beingphysically active.

With women populating half of the globe, should we not be encouraging more women to get active?

So, why sport?

For a long time, sport has been used as a vehicle for being active.

Despite the cultural significance of sport in Australia, including a public holiday in Victoria for the men’s football grand final, women participate in less sport than men.Globaldata suggests women aren't being active in other ways to counteract their lower sport participation.

There have beendeclining trendsin sport participation over generations. We need to understand why this is, including the social, cultural, psychological and economic factors. We need to understand why people, women in particular, aren't being active.

Girls and women can experience improved self-esteem, self-worth and confidence levels, as well as improved mental health from sport and physical activity. Additionally, women participating in sport, especially traditionally masculine sports, challenge rigid gender norms and stereotypes.

lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2020/02/10/1379641/why-womens-sport-matter

Runningupthecurtains

I have just found another amazing female cyclist who won this year's Race Across America, the first to ever do so. She is 52 years old and some athlete. 2982 miles in 11 days!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Goldstein

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Across_America

PurgatoryOfPotholes

Excellent post, thank you.

Take away the possibility of success and few young girls will feel they are able to buck the trend. Grass roots engagement would plummit.

I honestly have never seen 'participation' being the main aim of a sport since my child was in primary school and everyone got a participation award. Yippee!

#saveoursports #savewomenandgirlssports #goProfWinston #keepingitreal

This is the perspective of an American non-profit of the importance of sport for girls.

A MATTER OF HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

Founded in 1974 by Billie Jean King, the Foundation is dedicated to advancing the lives of girls and women through sports and physical activity. That’s what the Foundation does, but the “why” is most important. Although there is a federal law that mandates equal participation opportunities for male and female students in secondary and post secondary institutions of higher education, the real reason we want equal opportunity for our daughters to play sports is so they too can derive the psychological, physiological and sociological benefits of sports participation. Sport has been one of the most important socio-cultural learning experiences for boys and men for many years. Those same benefits should be afforded our daughters. It is important for all of us to know that:

•High school girls who play sports are less likely to be involved in an unintended pregnancy;

•more likely to get better grades in school and more likely to graduate than girls who do not play sports.

•As little as four hours of exercise a week may reduce a teenage girl’s risk of breast cancer by up to 60%; breast cancer is a disease that afflicts one out of every eight American women. (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994)

•Forty percent of women over the age of 50 suffers from osteoporosis (brittle bones). (Osteoporosis, 1996) None of us should want our daughters to repeat the experiences of generations of women—our mothers and grandmothers—who were not permitted to play sports or encouraged to participate in weight-bearing exercises that are necessary to establishing bone mass.

•Girls and women who play sports have higher levels of confidence and self-esteem and lower levels of depression.Girls and women who play sports have a more positive body image and experience higher states of psychological well-being than girls and women who do not play sports.

•Sport is where boys have traditionally learned about teamwork, goal-setting, the pursuit of excellence in performance and other achievement-oriented behaviors—critical skills necessary for success in the workplace. In an economic environment where the quality of our children’s lives will be dependent on two-income families, our daughters cannot be less prepared for the highly competitive workplace than our sons. It is no accident that 80% of the female executives at Fortune 500 companies identified themselves as former “tomboys”—having played sports.

From: www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy/benefits-sports-participation-girls-women/

Agree TreXX, absolutely. I can reel off a list of names of wonderful, inspirational women role models from the 2012 Olympics.

Disappointed to note that Georgist has failed to answer the questions I asked thought they might buck the trend, ah well, same old same old.

#saveoursports #savewomenandgirlssports #goProfWinston #keepingitreal

Yeah! @GeorgiePorgy turned out to be a bit of a dud!

Never mind!

Poor Prof Winston.

Sex is immutable. Sex matters.