Trans woman’s victory in female snooker sparks fairness row (Times, 2 Sep)

[BettyFilous]

Another day, another mediocre male taking a woman’s prize in women’s sport.

A transgender snooker player’s victory in a women’s competition has triggered fresh debate about fairness in sport.

Jamie Hunter, 25, became the first transgender woman to win a women’s ranking tournament on Sunday by beating Rebecca Kenna 4-1 at the US Women’s Open in Seattle.

snip

Hunter, 25, from Wigan, Greater Manchester, responded: “If Maria is upset, it is disheartening and saddening, but I’m there to help grow [the sport] not ruin it. I want the tour to prosper. 🙄

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6c08649c-29ea-11ed-a830-74a6c8fbb722?shareToken=b718d32e7db506e5bf707834f039c760

Rebecca - congratulations on your win! Sorry to hear you were cheated out of your prize money.

But the hobby player can catch up with professional women.....why is that????

If a man who didn't even play snooker were to discount the judgement of a 12 time champion he would be accused of mansplaining.

You are going there?

So, a sports scientist discounting a female athlete that states that males don’t have physical advantage despite evidence to the contrary, will be mansplaining?

It doesn’t matter what the evidence says? Just a personal opinion?

"But the hobby player can catch up with professional women.....why is that????"

Presumably because they do not practice as obsessively as the top men. Reanne Evans would be aware of how much regular practice it takes to get to the top of the women's game and apparently admits it much less than the men's. Perhaps it is less fashionable or there is less expectation of being able to win the life changing prize money for the elite players.

For instance it is noticeable that top players like ray reardon. Steve Davis,Stephen hendry etc would be eclipsed by younger players in turn. It is difficult to believe that this is due to physical decline because it happens from mid 30's onwards.

I've always wondered whether this is because older champions have families and more commitments and of course the hunger may fade as they have already won millions so the hours of practise drop slightly and the potting skills etc as slightly less sharp. As they say in many sports it is the top few% that matters

"It doesn’t matter what the evidence says? Just a personal opinion"

It's not like there's RCT for snooker is there?

Sorry? RCT?

Are you all completely bananas on this board?
They really really are. There is such a thin line in the feminism chat section of mn where posts in any other section would have been shut down by now. The absolute hatred spouted here is so sad- even the subject matter and post itself would not be allowed in any other section, mn would say it was not allowed in the spirit of the site

@FunnyTalks
Brilliant.
We are different. Not lesser. Women are transformers - from sports car to people carrier and (almost) back. That is the entire reason for male athletic advantage. Acknowledging that is not talking women down. Women''s bodies are awesome.

"But the hobby player can catch up with professional women.....why is that????"

Presumably because they do not practice as obsessively as the top men.

So the reason women can't run/cycle/swim as fast as men, and can't jump as high or as far is because the women aren't trying as hard?

Is that your argument?

"So the reason women can't run/cycle/swim as fast as men, and can't jump as high or as far is because the women aren't trying as hard?

Is that your argument"

Blatant strawman response and a ridiculous retort

Snooker is a game of skill and skills needs practice. No one runs swims or cycles in snooker

What makes you think the women aren't trying as hard as the men @Walkden ?

And what makes you think the man who's just won the women's title suddenly went from playing a couple of times a week to training harder than all the top women?

"What makes you think the women aren't trying as hard as the men @Walkden ?"

RTFT oldcrone.

I have. I've just skimmed through it again to see if I could find the post you're referring to, and I can't. Perhaps you can tell me who posted it and when.

This post seems to refer to why Jamie might have an advantage, though. Is this what you're referring to?

Even if there isn't hard evidence that physical differences explain the difference between men and women's performance in snooker, Jamie benefitted from all the advantages of growing up male and being treated as male, feeling at home in a snooker hall, not facing discrimination. If the women's snooker competition was set up for people who hadn't had those opportunities to improve in snooker over their lifetime, then that's the reason why Jamie should not be in that competition.

That's not to do with 'trying' though. You may have misunderstood (especially if you're a man). It's often quite intimidating for women to try to break into traditionally male pursuits. Some men can be incredibly hostile to women who don't conform to the feminine stereotype.

Please specify the exact "absolute hatred" on this thread @stayathomer . What's "so sad" is women losing out to men in sports.

Yes we're all bananas.

I agree the world is absolutely fucking bananas when there are people arguing that men belong in women's sports.
With a straight face.

And then call it hatred when people suggest there's something wrong with it.

Bananas.

The absolute hatred spouted here

What 'hatred'?

Can you give some examples?

What I see is women lamenting lost opportunities for women in sport. Why is that acceptable to you?

And then call it hatred when people suggest there's something wrong with it.

Its basically 'I have no argument, so I hit the nuclear button'

Every. Single. Time.

Snooker is a game of skill and skills needs practice.

A twice a week player catapulted himself instantaneously from amateur nobody to winning the women's championship.

The top women players had been practising. He hadn't. How did he manage to win?

Can you explain this @Walkden ?

Males dominate snooker only because they practice more obsessively? So no woman who was good at and passionate about snooker has EVER practiced as obsessively as the men?

Horse riding is a skill sport that takes years of obsessive practice to get good at too... yet here we are.

"He hadn't"

Hasn't she?

She? We're talking about a male person here. People can't change sex.

This dystopian patriarchy we live in never fails to shock and disgust me.

OK.. Why do we need Randomised Controlled Trials for snooker exactly?

Do you think that modelling or hypothetical modelling based on known science will change the outcome to show there is no advantage?

Is this like, we don't have any rugby related transitioned male data, so therefore transitioned males should not be excluded from rugby until we do have a complete and peer reviewed study of transitioned male rugby players against females?

As I said.

You may choose to put all your credibility into a female snooker player, who you have no idea if she is being pressured like many other female sportspeople to say something like there is no male physical advantage, or you can look at the logic and the studies that are out there and draw some pretty solid conclusions.

You remember, of course, many women objected to women getting the vote.

You might also remember that the UK sports council also reported many female sportspeople across all sports reported that they could not tell the truth due to fear of losing places, sponsorship and respect.

So, please tell us again why anyone should listen to the opinion that there is no physical advantage for males in snooker, when even the studies showing a greater proportion to arm length to height is considered 'significant' in males vs females.

And that is not including twitch muscles, arm strength for power and even power through the trajectory, hand size and other differences. Perception differences.

And ... it doesn't even matter. This was a female competition and should not have been open to males.

Because why would it be that females may not train as intensely? What reasons would be behind that if they truly had a chance to win the prize money?

Nothing you have said is convincing. Simply saying 'x said this' is not credible in this era considering the loss associated with saying anything that might cause loss of sponsorship or access to training / competition. And if you cannot see the loss that females fear, maybe you should start actually producing evidence.

I have not seen anything so far at all that is relevant.

"showing a greater proportion to arm length to height is considered 'significant' in males vs females.

And that is not including twitch muscles, arm strength for power and even power through the trajectory, hand size and other differences. Perception differences"

But is there any actual evidence that this produces an advantage in snooker or just looking for physical differences and extrapolating it? You might feel that arm length to height is an Advantage in snooker but apparently the elite players do not and attribute the differences to mental factors

As far as I can tell on this thread there is no evidence presented by anyone.

Because why would it be that females may not train as intensely? What reasons would be behind that if they truly had a chance to win the prize money?

I think I've found the answer to that in an article from 2014 that @Walkden quoted from (without citing the source).

The women are all amateurs (or they were in 2014 - I don't know if that's changed).

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/27253279

Leading women's player Reanne Evans agreed that focusing solely on the game, given other priorities and a lack of financial support, is hard.

"The men's game has the backing behind them that they can afford to have a part-time job, or no job, and just practise and work at the snooker, whereas there's no money in the women's game whatsoever."

There are currently no professional women snooker players, despite top-tier competitions being open to both genders.