Twitter Thread - Women in Sport

[Pawtriarchal]

This thread by Dr Sheree Bekker on Twitter - where do you even start? Why do women do this?

twitter.com/shereebekker/status/1504899936843935746?s=21

My days...
I've said it on here before, but my DH is a decent club runner. Top 2,000 athletes in the country. Last time I checked only 23 women were ranked higher than him if a woman turned up and beat him at parkrun (so in about 16 minutes), I'd buy her bottomless brunch

It blows my mind that she’s spent all that time compiling a narrative of why women are losing out by having their sex based sports categories, it’s gaslighting to the extreme - except I think she actually believes it?

@McDuffy

My days... I've said it on here before, but my DH is a decent club runner. Top 2,000 athletes in the country. Last time I checked only 23 women were ranked higher than him if a woman turned up and beat him at parkrun (so in about 16 minutes), I'd buy her bottomless brunch

Yes a bottomless brunch and then the prize of her time not being recognized as the achievement it is, due to other ‘women’s’ times suddenly being even better than hers. Hmm what could they other women have in common?

The other massive point she’s missing is that it’s not just about the craziness of mixed sex sports - but that men are calling themselves women and taking the fastest times.

It’s total bobbins

Her examples are nonsense

No point arguing with the truly captured tho & lots of ppl are pointing out she’s talking shite in the answers

[quote Pawtriarchal]This thread by Dr Sheree Bekker on Twitter - where do you even start? Why do women do this?

twitter.com/shereebekker/status/1504899936843935746?s=21[/quote]
where is the problem? I thought this was an interesting thread. The husband pointed out that if more money went into women's sport (from an early age), the top performing women would be a lot closer to the men.

if more money went into women's sport (from an early age), the top performing women would be a lot closer to the men.

I don't understand how more money would change female physiology? Better coaching/more prize money isn't going to change the strength and speed advantages men get from going through male puberty.

It’s like people think if they start off with their bogus point as a title and then ‘a thread’ icon that what follows is treated as the truth. The rhetoric of ‘keeping women small’ that she winds throughout is damaging. This whole movement is in fact about keeping women small and in their place.

but it would increase the likelihood of finding and supporting very high performing women (while allowing a much broader section of women to play a sport).

where is the problem? I thought this was an interesting thread. The husband pointed out that if more money went into women's sport (from an early age), the top performing women would be a lot closer to the men.

Great. Let’s put more money into women’s sports. I agree. Why does that mean they need to compete against the men? The men that are calling themselves women? Oh and by the way… if there’s no reason that women should want their own sports, why don’t the men identifying themselves as women stay in the male category? Why could that be?

@CatherinaJTV

but it would increase the likelihood of finding and supporting very high performing women (while allowing a much broader section of women to play a sport).

How many women (actual women) do you think would qualify for national and international sport, let alone win? Do you think women’s sex based category sports should be abolished or are you just in favour of transwomen being included?

They might be closer if more money was put into women’s sports, but there’s still almost no sports in which top women would be able to challenge top men. One sport in which there is pretty good investment in the women’s game is tennis, and Serena Williams, the most successful tennis player of all time, has said she would be unlikely to win a single point off Andy Murray.

@CatherinaJTV

but it would increase the likelihood of finding and supporting very high performing women (while allowing a much broader section of women to play a sport).

Are you suggesting there's an undiscovered demographic of girls and women in the world who are so strong and/or fast they could challenge and beat even elite male athletes?

We've just not found them because nobody has been looking hard enough?

It’s so utterly ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the only reason for the 10%+ difference in performance between women and men is funding and training. Only people who are utterly captured, utterly stupid and no nothing about sport, or utterly disingenuous could suggest such a thing.

I remember reading that Paula Radcliffe, at her peak, would train/run for 4 hours, sleep for 4 hours, run for 4 hours, sleep for 12 hours, all at a specialised training camp, with altitude training included, nutrition optimised, sports science being applied to its maximum and so on. She is one of the greatest female marathon runners ever with her PB being the world best time for years. No amount of extra funding or training would close that gap. And even if the gap went from 10% to 9% with all that magical extra support, it will never be zero.

Only idiots suggest that the current segregation of sport by sex is wrong, which is effectively what they’re doing when they say mixed sex sport would be fine if it the money thing could be sorted .

It’s so utterly ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the only reason for the 10%+ difference in performance between women and men is funding and training. Only people who are utterly captured, utterly stupid and no nothing about sport, or utterly disingenuous could suggest such a thing.

It does make you wonder whether the people who spout this nonsense actually believe it. The elite female athletes do, as you point out, train just as hard as the male athletes. But the best females in the world still lack the lung capacity, muscle strength etc of the best males.

Women's bodies have evolved to bear children. The optimal shape and design (for want of a better word) for doing that are not the same as the optimal shape for running or swimming very fast.

High school boys who aren't even in their athletic prime and aren't even bothered to try particularly hard (it's high school)... Can beat Olympic level female athletes in virtually all categories.

boysvswomen.com/#/

I saw it and blocked. No point wasting time on the deluded.

@CatherinaJTV

but it would increase the likelihood of finding and supporting very high performing women (while allowing a much broader section of women to play a sport).

Smacks rather of gender ideology myth number 72.

Women aren't as good at sport compared to men because women aren't trying hard enough.

The best women simply have NEVER been found yet? In all these years of women's sport existing? If we try really hard, we'll find loads of women who can beat Usain Bolt in running? Really?

The best women simply have NEVER been found yet? In all these years of women's sport existing? If we try really hard, we'll find loads of women who can beat Usain Bolt in running? Really?

Apparently so. I suggest we all start looking in all the places we haven't yet looked. Back of the sofa, under the bed, in the garden shed? Damn it, these women must be hiding somewhere.

She says nothing about the practical disadvantages of being female - periods, ttc, pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopause, endo, fibroids etc. How women have to manage these on top over everything else.

Her examples are shooting, surfing, ultra marathons so quite niche sports and nothing about contact sport. Nothing about team sports or professional sports where a lot of money is at stake.

Nothing about why men should have to rugby tackle a pregnant female who identifies as a man.

She/her Has an interest in injury prevention and safety promotion, is an editor for the BMJ and Serves as deputy director for equality and diversity at the department of health

I despair

Oh what a lot of obfuscation.

This is a simple, two step process.

1. Aim - that male people want to commandeer female sports and have the right to compete as women if they want to. Without the whole world pointing out the bleeding obvious issues for females while this being undeniably lovely for said males.

2. thrash around in every possible direction trying to find justifications to enable point 1.

No thank you.

If male people need more inclusive and diverse male sports, then go sort out the male categories. Female sports are not a resource for male people to make use of.

She’s also using historical injustices to women to justify this as if somehow they’re linked. Women’s football being banned in the 1920’s. Women being banned from open competitions. These affected 50% of the population and the motivation was the benefit of males.

The motivation for this is again, almost uniquely to the benefit of males.

Womens sport has only been able to exist with the permission of men. Nothing seems to change.

Thanks for starting a thread on this. Someone I know IRL and who has a very senior university job and a degree in biology "liked" it.

I'm utterly hacked off about it. Both that this idiotic drivel has got so much traction and that someone who is supposed to have a brain finds it so easy to just switch off to avoid the cognitive dissonance.