Snooker

[TeenPlusCat]

I've been dipping in and out of the snooker this week, and a bit came up this afternoon about the women's world championship, and the fact that 2 women are now qualified to go on the main tour.
Anyway, they mentioned in passing that the first transgender (MtF) snooker player had got to the semi finals (Jamie Hunter).

Now obviously there is no obvious physical disadvantage to women playing snooker (except I suspect height and reach will still make a difference), but there is obviously a women's competition for a reason....
A teen boy hanging out playing pool/snooker would be a lot more usual than a teen girl, so at the age Jamie was developing their skills, a girl would be much less likely to have felt welcome?

And in curling males have greater sweeping control and speed.

And the ability to throw done a stone with more power to smash open the field.

(same with bowls by the way, that power to open up the kitty again should not be underestimated)

complete against the best

The repetition of this type of phrasing shows the misogyny behind it.

There's a strong biblical whiff of King Solomon's 'splitting the baby' parable about the trans lobby's position on women's sports - ideally they'd like to be a full part of it, but if that's not going to happen the next best outcome for them would seemingly be to tear it down/get rid of it altogether. it's disgusting.

Anyone who doesn’t think height, reach, hand size, the absence or presence of breasts and strength don’t play a part in snooker, has quite frankly never played or even seen a snooker table up close. Snooker tables are huge, 12 x 6 feet, and although they’re quite low, they are massive. That’s before even we’re talking about bridging over other balls, which is impossible if you have small hands; or trying to take a shot when there are balls under you and boobs in the way; or trying to play a powerful shot at full stretch, which for an average woman will be a lot closer to the cushion than for an average man, and of course men naturally have greater strength, so they can hit a ball much harder than a woman. Unless you are an exceptionally unusual player, using the spider or the rest is always more difficult, especially if your elevation of view is lower, and an average female player, even on an average sized pool table, will have to use the spider or the rest a lot more frequently than an average male, and the spider is quite heavy, especially the long one, which an average female would have to use far more frequently. That’s not even getting into why a Male player, even if they do identify as a woman, would feel the need or think they have the right to enter a female competition, when there’s a perfectly good open competition for them to enter. It’s not even as if they would feel out of place, there are two female players already in the open, although the fact that there are only the top two ranking female players in the open competition should tell you something in itself.

re darts: the oche is 9 feet 7 3/8 inches away from the board, and the bull’s-eye is 5ft8 off the ground, which is way above my head although I’m short, but still above the head of the average height female. You have to chuck that arrow quite hard to hit the board, which is clearly easier if you’re stronger and have greater height and reach. Again, there have been a few women who have played on the male darts circuit, but the fact that there have only been a few should tell you something in itself.

Men have notably better visuo-motor skills including hand to eye coordination and spatial awareness. So outside of factors like average height, handsize, strength, etc. Men have just as much advantage at sports/skills like snooker, bowls, darts as they do at most other sports.

You have to remember, sports grew up around male advantage and the vast, vast majority of sports are those which males are best at. Sports that would favour women are few and far between. Ultra endurance only started as a best of the best type thing that it was assumed men would be better at and it's s surprise that they probably aren't. If and when it's confirmed that women are much better at it, we probably won't see as great a proportion of men competing. We also don't see strength competitions that focus on endurance rather than raw lifting power. Women have better endurance and shorter recovery times, so if there was a strength competition that where participants lift a weight which is a proportion of their body weight for as many repetitions until failure, or as many repetitions as they could in a set period, women would almost certainly excel at that sport as it suits our body type. If instead of skill games like snooker, we elevated memory games to a sport level, women would be the top competitors at that. Apart from ultras, which has been a lucky fluke, and jockeys to a certain degree, there aren't really any existing sports or skills elevated to sport status, that women can be equal or better at. Because sports were mens domain for so long that they elevated showcases of their skillsets. While, not to belittle women who excel in their sex category of these sports, the sports that women would absolutely excel at, just aren't considered sports, they are just kids games, mental exercises or training techniques.

And for those who think tweaking scores / handicaps is the way it could work, how is that fair either? So, a female gets x to even out the fairness, who decides what x is and is it applicable to all females or just that unique female so they can compete with males? Who then calculates it? Who then adjudicates it?

Ultra running in a sense represents the peak of human physical achievement, and I daresay far lower participation rates have the effect of understating the impact of female dominance. From a profile point of view, I suppose a big problem that a 100 mile [or whatever] race has is that it's largely unwatchable as a spectator sport, taking far too long to complete & rarely producing close finishes.

I am fucking BRILLLIANT at archery. Norkage notwithstanding.

<misses the point>

What this issue is showing is that in many if not most areas of sport women are doubly disadvantaged. By both biological and social factors. This seems crashingly obvious, to me.

Sorry if physical fact is misogyny although typical peak Mumsnet to start playing that game. People remember the first human in space they remember the world's fasted human they know who the heavyweight champion is. The attendances including the price people are prepared to pay to watch and viewing figures demonstrate this they care about the category open to everyone. The best is the best I could never be the best jockey (much too big) nor have I a steady hand to hold a bow I don't expect my attempts at sport to be given even a remotely similar credence to the elite humans. I don't expect them to create a heavyweight jockey championship or propanol aided archery competition. that isn't discrimination that is fact of life.

By the way I am massive supported of being gender critical in sport where it matters. Women's sport should be available for biological females only. It doesn't alter the fact that the population by and large is massively more interested in the open catagories for reasons I have outlined and where possible women should if they can compete play in them.

per my post two pages ago, 4 of the 5 most watched boxing matches of all time involved a boxer who moved to the weight ranks from super featherweight to light middleweight. people watched because of his skills, and didn't care about the fact that he'd have been steamrollered by any halfway competent heavyweight.

www.google.com/amp/s/talksport.com/sport/boxing/929210/top-boxing-ppvs-of-all-time-manny-pacquiao-floyd-mayweather-jr-conor-mcgregor-holyfield-tyson-de-la-hoya/amp/

I am not sure anyone who casts an informed eye over your posts finds them compelling at all fishy.

And you obviously live in some kind of special vacuum. Because many people know the names of great sportswomen and other great women.

Many people will watch the sport they love regardless of it is the male or the female sport when it comes to major events such as the Olympics. Or are you one of these people who will turn the channel if a female category sport comes on?

If you only live to recognise the best males because of your own prejudice, own it and move on.

that isn't discrimination that is fact of life.

There it is again.

Women and girls, unless you can beat the men at sports, forget it! Some people believe that you will never be the best of the best because you are only the best of the best for your female sexed body type and men….they will always be destined to be the best of the best (not just the best of their body type).

So women and girls, pack up and go home. No one will remember you, applaud you, recognise your achievement of being the best female, they won’t even watch you do it u less you are there beating the males.

Can’t compete against the males….well, fuck off then… that is life.

You really have a new perspective on life their fish.

oh wait…. it is not so new at all.

there. Not their

@Fishwishy People remember the first human in space.

You think? Like the vast majority of people who grew up in the west, I had heard of Neil Armstrong a long, long time before I heard of Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin. I've seen numerous situations, talking to adults and children, in quiz shows, at table quizes, etc. Where people answer the question of who was the first man in space with Neil Armstrong, or even Alan Shepherd. Yuri Gagarin is barely a footnote in western history unless someone is particularly interested in space travel. I'm sure that in Russia and Eastern Europe he is extremely well known.

However back in 1963 Valentina Tereshkova was a world wide celebrity following her solo space flight. She travelled the world, met with Queen Elizabeth in 1964, hosted the International Women's Conference, was an honoured guest at sporting competitions all over Europe. However, quite quickly, news of Tereshkova was quietened in the west, especially following the death of Theodore Freeman in training in 1964. Nasa did not want to risk a woman being killed in training or space. So few if any of us learned of Valentina Tereshkova as children. This isn't true in Russia however where Tereshkova has had lasting notoriety and fame, a long and highly successful military career, trained numerous cosmonauts, has held a seat in the state Duma since 2011 as she went into politics after she retired from the airforce. She's had her face on stamps, has toys and souvenirs made of her, had songs written about her, been an Olympic torch bearer, had streets and buildings named after her. Overall, she has had significantly more awards and honours than Yuri Gargarin, though his death in 1968 is the biggest factor in that.

Most people just won't have heard of her for political reasons. Not because she was only the 12th person/1st woman in space. Like with Armstrong I have heard many, many claims that Sally Ride was the first woman in space. In the east, she had all of the recognitions and honours to which she deserved.

images.app.goo.gl/MablUczudySzhASkN7

Archer Stephanie Barrett, height 6'1, only started archery in 2016. Competed in the women's category in the 2021 Olympics (flew under the radar with all the focus on Hubbard, but same m.o.).
Competed in the mixed team event also (pictured). Yep we're meant to believe 2 biological males is a mixed team).

Sorry link not working but google Stephanie Barrett archery and there are pictures with their male teammate who we can still call male

Last try

She's certainly a big lass. Also by the looks of her easily old enough to be the father of most of the other competitors. Seems perfectly legit.

Prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrince Naseem!

And of course, no one at all knows the names of Paula Radcliffe, Sharron Davies, or Billie Jean King or Martina Navratilova, or Nicola Adams, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Ash Barty, Megan Rapinoe, Sam Kerr, Simone Biles, Emma McKeon, Katie Ledecky … I mean the list is endless.

But no… no one knows their names according to Fish. They are not the best of the best at all. Worthless women all of them. They would all lose against males, so therefore they are inferior goods apparently.

Truly, some people must live in a bubble where only the extremes of capitalistic individualism is worshipped. Or they have a very narrow engagement with the world. Or they are not engaging in good faith.

You know, sports does exist outside TV viewing figures and ticket sales. I know it must be a shock to discover.

Yes, Stef Barrett, a mature beginner, started Archery and ended up representing Canada within 18-24 months I think. And they say males don’t have any advantage in archery….

You are wrong about men having an advantage in rhythmic gymnastics, but only because the rules of artistic gymnastics don't permit tumbling skills, e.g airtime. I think there was some big brouhaha about someone putting an aerial in a routine once. Somersaults and flips/flics are not permitted. The type of acro skills that are awarded in rhythmic rely heavily on flexibility so the advantage is with women, specifically underweight women with a gracile build. The Ballanchine body is very much the ideal. Programmes that excel at an international level select for hypotonia and hypermobility at a young age. This is why

The video you are referring to shows an Olympic level male artistic gymnast and his friend, who really is excellent but suffered an injury that prevented a similar career path, doing women's artistic gymnastics. They aren't that great but they are just mucking about really. If a male artistic gymnasts actually wanted to switch to WAG and put the time in to creating, learning, and polishing code compliant routines they would certainly have a physical advantage. But rhythmic is a totally different discipline. In fact WAG is really a different discipline than MAG, which is the only reason a male gymnast switching wouldn't have a completely overwhelming advantage.

Nile Wilson and Ashley Watson actually did a video where they tried rhythmic once and Ash has really nice apparatus handling skills for someone with no training in that. However, nice apparatus handling skills aren't enough to compensate for flexibility at a high level.

Fish's argument is risible. Given around ten seconds of consideration. The very existence of the Paralympics should be enough to show that, really.

Yeah, I dunno. As you say, it'd be a big challenge for a male bodied person to outdo 4'8" etc Simon Biles on a 4-inch wide balance beam etc. But as I think you are also saying, it seems sensible to assume that men would be better overall at most formulations of a hypothetical mixed sex gymnastics event.