Oh Fuck Off, Claire Balding

[Igneococcus]

Because the way to advance women's sport is to have mixed teams, it seems:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/ec86fbbb-d2df-447e-b597-269bc8970097?shareToken=f639188b858cc1b676e48c918f8bc94a

In 2017 she was asking men to accept a weight handicap so that women could compete on an equal footing. Its really not the same as redesigning football boots so they don't injure women.

I think the headline somewhat takes out of context what she actually says. I disagree with her on football, but there could be more mixed medleys in sports that are essentially individual, if there's spectator appetite for them, and I think that's her main argument. I'm not sure it would really have a bearing on funding though because they'd always be additive- it's unlikely the mixed team would comprise athletes who weren't already at the event doing individual or men's/women's relay.

I have to agree though that more studies into the differences between male and female bodies for sport are needed. The full effects of menstrual cycles, pregnancy, equipment etc, there is so much to cover for female athletes yet.

For too long female athletes were treated like small male athletes, and this needs to be unpicked.

There is a discussion to be had about this, but it must be in addition to single sex teams without any males of any gender identity.

My daughter is an aspiring cricketer.

She plays in women's county teams and women's single sex leagues. Her county is one of the ones that the ECB has deemed 'high enough' to exclude trans women (I thoroughly disagree with their decision on this) but her club team could be compelled to include males under the recent decision.

In addition to this the best girls, aspiring to professional, also play weekly in men's leagues. It is widely recognised that this is desirable for the girls to develop to the best of their ability. They enjoy being able to do this and are generally welcomed into the teams based on the fact that they are technically competent to be there. The only time my daughter has faced any real sexism was when her men's team played a team largely made up of Afghan refugees, they weren't keen on getting bowled by a 15 year old girl! But the men on her team won't put up with any sexism and defend her right to be there fiercely.

If we say that we only want single sex sport then these opportunities are lost to them.

I agree @Cailin66 and @Helleofabore it is sport specific. It could provide a much better debate on inclusion, for women. I would be surprised if men would tolerate the TWAW mantra

I am shocked by what she says about football - has she ever seen an elite women's teams play against boys, or old fat men? There's no real competition at all.

So a mixed team that's all male. Yeah, that would work Clare 🤔

It is a rather ignorant example for her to have made, to be honest. It is almost like she doesn't understand how football works or just chooses to ignore the very differences between male and female bodies she skirts around discussing all the time.

She only has to look at examples such as Zambia with at least one if not more male players with DSDs, the Flying Bats in Sydney with their up to 5 male players, or even teams in the UK where they have a male goalie such as Hamilton playing to see just how it is going to not really be feasible to have mixed football. But.... she will just keep on skipping over the obvious.

I've played both competitive and social mixed and single sex sports for decades. They serve very different purposes and mixed can never replace single sex (social or competitive).

Even in a largely non-contact sport designed from the ground up to be mixed (i.e. there are different rules, points and even equipment for the sexes) they can never cancel out the male advantage. Women end up playing the less enjoyable positions, they still risk injury, and they will play a less significant role in the game.

In social contact sports, it is only successful if the males significantly hold back. These types of games can be utterly demoralising, even for talented females.

One of my sports is football. To suggest males and females can compete on a level playing field is of the highest order of stupidity.

"It’s not about power, it’s about speed..." is an asinine statement - where does the speed come from one might ask?

I love women's football but compared with any level of the men's game it is very slow. Somebody earlier mentioned goalies - Mary Earps is 5'8 and Jordan Pickford is 6' and he's considered short for the men's game.

Anyone who's a rugby league fan, as CB is, is perfectly well aware of the massive difference between men and women in contact sports. So it can't be said that oh, it's not really her field, or anything like that. So yes, disappointing. But that's the BBC for you.

Elite women players - I stress elite - play against and beat elite boys and Academy players as part of out-of-season training.
The boys learn from the older elite players' football intelligence and gamecraft - they would benefit from playing adult men but of course there is a safety concern and there's nothing in it for the men's first team.. The women get a much sterner physical and mental test than any women's team could provide, which prepares them for the season ahead.

The women's first team at top European clubs do this, as does the USWNT. They typically play against an U15 or U16 team and get defeated - the first time. The boys are quicker, stronger, can jump higher, judge the flight of the ball more easily, etc. The women have less time to think and make good decisions on the pitch, they have to pass the ball under severest pressure.
Then they have a rematch a couple of times...and the women win because they are elite players after all and they have become used to the greater physical and mental demands.
Then the women take on the next age group, and so on. It usually stops at U18 level because by that stage the women's tactical nous and experience advantage is much smaller. The U18s are more talented than the U15s, many of whom will have been let go by their clubs. And the U18s are of course much bigger and stronger so at that age group, the women's safety has to be considered. But the women often do beat them as well. It's a training exercise - so when you see headlines about boys thrashing top women teams, this is the context.

In the article she’s not saying that SS sports shouldn’t exist, she’s just saying the mixed events can be good. I loved the mixed relays at the Olympics. Rather than what a PP suggested that “sports are more interesting with men involved”, I think that having mixed events will introduce some viewers to women’s sports who otherwise wouldn’t have watched them. She’s also not saying that mixed events would be suitable for all sports. I don’t know much about football but she talked to a lioness about the idea of mixed teams so I’m assuming a player who’s won the euros would know more than me (and maybe most of us on Mumsnet).
As for research into women’s sport and bodies, I think it’s super important. Men have had decades (if not centuries) of a head start into sports research of how to train, what to eat, what equipment to use to be at the top of their game. As with the football boot problem, there are countless other areas where women’s sport can be better researched and improved both in terms of safety and performance.
I like Claire Balding and for decades she’s been advocating for women’s sports. I don’t understand why she’s getting so much hate here?

Even in a largely non-contact sport designed from the ground up to be mixed (i.e. there are different rules, points and even equipment for the sexes) they can never cancel out the male advantage. Women end up playing the less enjoyable positions, they still risk injury, and they will play a less significant role in the game.

This isn't borne out in my daughters experience in cricket. She opens the bowling in her men's team in the men's league and won player of the year at the awards ceremonies!

She has been promoted up through the league over time which has 8 divisions.

She is a county girls player. The best female players can compete in the highest men's leagues but would never be good enough to play for the England men's teams or top counties.

I just think that we have to be careful what we wish for. Ending participation of women in men's leagues, where they can, would be detrimental for women's sport.

Mixed relays are one thing, claiming that differences in physical characteristics in football aren't important is an entirely different thing. TRAs would just use the fact there were official mixed sex teams as a reason to claim that sex doesn't matter in sport. If she had addressed that, or the boxing controversies, in some fashion in this interview, I'd be more prepared to listen to what she has to say, but she didn't.

She can have another even bigger FUCK OFF

My 15-year old granddaughter plays rugby - how can these young girls possibly play alongside boys/men? They'd be seriously injured!

The performance of an exceptional woman - as your daughter evidently is - does not negate the experience for the vast majority of ordinary women playing mixed sports. I enjoy it - I played two mixed sports for over a decade - and they have a different vibe from single sex and bring different things to your enjoyment, but I was never anything approaching equal to the men I played with.

We had one exceptional woman on our team (so good she now represents England in the sport) but she was outperformed by may of the sporty but very ordinary men in the team.

Hmm. Agree that mixed sex triathlons and running relays are exciting, but it's dangerous to even consider mixed sex in any contact sports. Football? Insane. Golf? Ok.

But she avoided the massive elephant in the room of trans women.

I'm just not sure what you, and others, are suggesting?

The optimum should be that there are single sex sports AND women should still have the option to play in mixed teams. I am very wary of suggestions that sport should be so segregated that no women should be allowed in men's leagues for fear it weakens an argument for women only sport. That would be detrimental to women.

It's actually also not that unusual in women's cricket. There are several girls/ women who play in the 'men's' league. Not one of them are 'second fiddle' to the men. They're not there as a charity but through merit. But I do appreciate that cricket is a sport where, particularly with bowling, skill can be of more value than physicality.

But at the highest level mixed sex teams are regulated in terms of the number of each sex that compete per team. I would say they’re even more regulated to ensure teams are fair. Because otherwise the mixed teams would just end up being men’s teams.
I don’t really see why she should have mentioned trans/intersex etc. it’s not really relevant to the interview? At the end of the day it was just a short interview, she offered a few opinions. She probably didn’t even choose the title of the interview, they probably just chatted a bit about the mixed relays at the Olympics and how great they were and how great it would be to see more similar events (a conversation I’ve had with people about the Olympics), then the journalist decided to focus on that as the headline.
If you care so much about women’s rights why are you tearing down a woman for giving a couple of pretty inconsequential opinions.

I'm not suggesting that mixed sports should not be allowed (as I've said, I've enjoyed them for many years), or that very good women should not be allowed to play in men's competition, if it is safe to do so.

What I am against is the suggestion that mixed sports are equal or should in any way replace single sex sports. This seemed to be where Balding's comments were going and I've seen it used in other areas - i.e. where the performance of one exceptional woman is used to try to prove men have no advantage over women.

I've watched this happen in touch rugby before, an immensely talented female player who played for a premiership team came along for a fun time and three times was in a perfect position to take a pass and three times a mediocre male player ran in front of her to intercept the pass (one knocking the ball on). Even in something like touch rugby you can see the differences in terms of reach, speed & power despite, in theory, being a non-contact sport.

Why are these fuckwits perpetually shoved down our throats as national treasures. To who? A mythical Middle Englander ensconced in a Marylebone flat or listed building in the shires?

It would be interesting to test a rule for these types of games that allowed girls/women to pass to anyone but boys/men to pass only to a player of the other sex.