|
![[image loading]](http://www.heraldnews.com/archive/x1655832308/g2e22e20000000000000ae03aefb2d3c2159d4b35352cbe338ef24559a0.jpg) Norwood’s Will Higgins, center, recently took first place in the 50-yard freestyle at the Girl’s South Sectional MIAA meet.(photo and caption from the Boston Herald)
New York Times article
The New York Times ran a pair of articles this weekend about high school girls swim teams in Massachusetts. By state law, Massachusetts public high schools have to provide equal access to sports for both sexes. That means, among other things, that if a school has a girls swim team but no boys swim team (due to insufficient funding/interest), then they have to let boys swim on the girls team. They compete with the girls in intramural competition up to and including the state level.
There have been news stories about various similar situations before, usually going the opposite way. Once in a while you hear about a girl who makes a football team (usually as kicker); once in a longer while, she actually gets to play. There are a number of girls who join boys wrestling teams; they sometimes make the news when they make it to the State finals. A couple of times they've even won (usually in the lowest weight class). There have also been stories about guys joining girls gymnastics teams.
This seems different, though. If a girl wants to join a boys' team, she's essentially 'fighting up' a weight class: more power to her. If a boy joins a girls gymnastics team: fine, they're largely competing on intangibles like artistry, where he doesn't have an edge. Swimming, though, is a sport where strength is definitely an advantage. There's a reason why swim teams are segregated in the first place. If it's fair to allow boys to swim on the girls swim team in cases like this, why isn't it fair in other cases (e.g. where there are swim teams for both)? Conversely, if it isn't fair in other cases, why is it fair here?
As I see it, there's just no logic in allowing boys to swim as girls. That's how I put it in the title of the thread, and I know that might be a bit provocative, but I think it's true. It's called a "girls'" swim team, and they're letting certain boys join it. It's not as if the word "girls" is just a meaningless name, it has clear relevance. Most boys can't compete in these events. Can't, as in not allowed. The only boys who can compete 'as girls' are the ones who happen to reside within a school district that has a swim team for the girls and none for the boys. State law mandates this in the name of "equal opportunity", but really it's anything but.
+ Show Spoiler [more pictures of the Norwood Girls Swi…] +
Follow-up article about the results
Edit: a number of people in this thread have made the argument that at the high school level, differences between the sexes are negligible, so this excerpt from the first article seems worth quoting.
The New York Times wrote:
Higgins’s winning time of 23.96 was a personal best by one second. He broke the girls’ sectional record, set in 1985 by Cynthia Kangos of Wellesley, by 14-hundredths of a second. (The boys’ sectional record is 21.40.)
If 2.56 seconds doesn't seem like a long time, consider that the difference between first and second place in the actual meet (covered in the follow-up article) was .07 seconds.
Edit 2:On November 20 2011 18:27 NeThZOR wrote:And here I thought, according to the misleading title of the OP, that I would be seeing boys swimming in bikini's  Lol All right, for all you weirdos who came here wanting to see something like this
+ Show Spoiler [here you go] +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXniUr0PQms
|
Rofl waffle.
This just reaffirms to me that women really aren't that different from men. They would be the bully if they could.
|
Serious question, as a girl, are you allowed to compete in Bikinis? and Speedos for guys?
|
So you're saying those boys shouldn't be allowed to swim then?
Seriously, it's school swimming. Who actually cares if boys are competing with girls.
|
Originally I didn't want to bother making a thread, so I just bumped a slightly related one here, but I should have realized that it wouldn't take more than a page for the discussion to revert back to the OT of that thread. Here are the relevant posts from there:
+ Show Spoiler [posts from other thread] +On November 20 2011 10:28 qrs wrote:This is probably worth a thread of its own, but I don't feel like making one, so I'll just bump this relevant one. If anyone feels like using these links to start a new thread, help yourself. There have been a few news stories over the years related to the subject of this thread: i.e. girls competing against boys, usually as a result of insufficient funding/interest for a separate female program along with equal-opportunity laws; usually in wrestling, sometimes in football or ice hockey. The NY Times this Sat. had an interesting article about the opposite sort of thing: boys competing against girls on swim teams in Massachusetts. Boys Swimming on Girls Teams Find Success Then Draw Ire. Here's the follow-up article describing the result: Girl Beats Boys to Win Girls Swim Title. On November 20 2011 11:29 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 10:28 qrs wrote:This is probably worth a thread of its own, but I don't feel like making one, so I'll just bump this relevant one. If anyone feels like using these links to start a new thread, help yourself. There have been a few news stories over the years related to the subject of this thread: i.e. girls competing against boys, usually as a result of insufficient funding/interest for a separate female program along with equal-opportunity laws; usually in wrestling, sometimes in football or ice hockey. The NY Times this Sat. had an interesting article about the opposite sort of thing: boys competing against girls on swim teams in Massachusetts. Boys Swimming on Girls Teams Find Success Then Draw Ire. Here's the follow-up article describing the result: Girl Beats Boys to Win Girls Swim Title. How shitty, these boys work so hard and people just want to piss on them. I'm sure none of them are there "just to beat a bunch of girls" and have no other option (other than simply not swim.) If it's such a big deal, maybe they should put weight classes into these strength-based sessions (50-freestyle) otherwise the bigger stronger girl wins anyways. This is why all sports should really just be unisexed with weight limitations where necessary. On November 20 2011 11:35 qrs wrote:
^I don't agree. It makes no sense for boys to compete against girls--if it did, they should be allowed to do that whether or not there's a swimming program for them.
As for your "weight limitation" idea, come on. If weight were an important factor in swimming, don't you think that the sport would already have weight limitations, just like combat sports do? The point is that boys are stronger than girls, not that they're heavier. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to compete as 'girls'. If that means that some boys don't get a chance to swim in their school, too bad. My high school didn't have a swimming program either. We lived.
I don't mind girls competing in boys divisions, because that's like 'fighting up' a weight class, but letting boys compete in girls divisions is like 'fighting down' a weight class and that's not fair. On November 20 2011 11:36 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 11:29 Alay wrote:On November 20 2011 10:28 qrs wrote:This is probably worth a thread of its own, but I don't feel like making one, so I'll just bump this relevant one. If anyone feels like using these links to start a new thread, help yourself. There have been a few news stories over the years related to the subject of this thread: i.e. girls competing against boys, usually as a result of insufficient funding/interest for a separate female program along with equal-opportunity laws; usually in wrestling, sometimes in football or ice hockey. The NY Times this Sat. had an interesting article about the opposite sort of thing: boys competing against girls on swim teams in Massachusetts. Boys Swimming on Girls Teams Find Success Then Draw Ire. Here's the follow-up article describing the result: Girl Beats Boys to Win Girls Swim Title. How shitty, these boys work so hard and people just want to piss on them. I'm sure none of them are there "just to beat a bunch of girls" and have no other option (other than simply not swim.) If it's such a big deal, maybe they should put weight classes into these strength-based sessions (50-freestyle) otherwise the bigger stronger girl wins anyways. This is why all sports should really just be unisexed with weight limitations where necessary. Or why sports should be completely separated, having only boy and girl team respectively. On November 20 2011 11:57 ThaZenith wrote:
Well, regarding the bump guy, I don't think boys should have been swimming on a girls team in the first place, regardless of if there was another team for them or not.
The sexes are physically different, and thus why competitively they're usually separated in sports. There's nothing wrong with that fact, I don't know why people are always trying to force equality when we fundamentally aren't.
And I'd probably be pretty pissed if, hypothetically, my daughter was being beaten in a girls competition by boys. Just kinda stupid. On November 20 2011 12:01 Zirith wrote:
It depends on the age group for swimming, girls mature earlier than boys and are therefore faster at around 12-14 then it becomes slightly even, and by 16ish most boys should have a distinct advantage because of body type.
|
On November 20 2011 13:01 RavenLoud wrote:
Rofl waffle.
This just reaffirms to me that women really aren't that different from men. They would be the bully if they could.
So your saying they aren't different then men, and then in the next sentence you effectively say they cant be the bully for some unknown reason? wouldn't there have to be different in some way if they cant be the bully?
edit- typo
|
On November 20 2011 12:57 qrs wrote:![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/19/sports/SWIMMING1/SWIMMING1-articleLarge-v2.jpg) Norwood High School's Anthony Rodriguez and Evelyn Metta during practice. Six boys compete on Norwood's girls team.(photo and caption from the New York Times. Click the photo to read the article.)The New York Times ran a pair of articles this weekend about high school girls swim teams in Massachusetts. By state law, Massachusetts public high schools have to provide equal access to sports for both sexes. That means, among other things, that if a school has a girls swim team but no boys swim team (due to insufficient funding/interest), then they have to let boys swim on the girls team. They compete with the girls in intramural competition up to the state level. There have been news stories about various similar situations before, usually going the opposite way. Once in a while you hear about a girl who makes a football team (usually as kicker); once in a longer while, she actually gets to play. There are a number of girls who join boys wrestling teams; they sometimes make the news when they make it to the State finals. A couple of times they've even won (usually in the lowest weight class). There have also been stories about guys joining girls gymnastics teams. This seems different, though. If a girl wants to join a boys' team, she's essentially 'fighting up' a weight class: more power to her. If a boy joins a girls gymnastics team: fine, they're largely competing on intangibles like artistry, where he doesn't have an edge. Swimming, though, is a sport where strength is definitely an advantage. There's a reason why swim teams are segregated in the first place. If it's fair to allow boys to swim on the girls swim team in cases like this, why isn't it fair in other cases (e.g. where there are swim teams for both)? Conversely, if it isn't fair in other cases, why is it fair here? As I see it, there's just no logic in allowing boys to swim as girls. That's how I put it in the title of the thread, and I know that might be a bit provocative, but I think it's true. It's called a "girls'" swim team, and they're letting certain boys join it. It's not as if the word "girls" is just a meaningless name, it has clear relevance. Most boys can't compete in these events. Can't, as in not allowed. The only boys who can compete 'as girls' are the ones who happen to reside within a school district that has a swim team for the girls and none for the boys. State law mandates this in the name of "equal opportunity", but really it's anything but. + Show Spoiler [more pictures of the Norwood Girls Swi…] +(photos and captions from the New York Times) ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/19/sports/SWIMMING2/SWIMMING2-popup.jpg) Rodriguez, center, is among roughly two dozen boys who compete on girls teams in Massachusetts because their schools do not have boys swimming programs.![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/19/sports/sub-y-jp-swimming/sub-y-jp-swimming-popup.jpg) Norwood Coach Kim Goodwin, left, said she was a vocal opponent of boys' competing with girls before she had boys on her team.
Despite your sexism, you may of had an argument here if the main purpose of high school sports was to win/lose. Denying these young man a chance to do what they love and grow as a person seems more unfair then the slight edge they get from being men in a swimming competition/denying them a chance at a college scholarship, which may be the only way they can pay for college.
|
On November 20 2011 13:02 Syth wrote:
So you're saying those boys shouldn't be allowed to swim then?
Seriously, it's school swimming. Who actually cares if boys are competing with girls.
This pretty much sums it up. It's not like there's a bunch of money in highschool swimming that they're stealing from the girls or anything.
Of course it would be more ideal if they simply had boys teams for them to play on, but if those aren't available, this is what they have to do. It is what it is.
|
I thought girls were better swimmers, so it wouldn't matter? I guess I was wrong.
|
I think this is completely acceptable, and shouldn't be an issue at all. If women are allowed to enter mens teams when there isnt a designated female alternative why cant it go the other way around? I'm sure the boys would rather race against other boys.
|
This is really dumb, boy and girls are segregated because boys are stronger than girls period. Allowing boys to be on a swim team with girls is a huge advantage to the team, this isn't fair to the other schools that they are competing against and shouldn't be allowed.
Has nothing to do with discrimination but it has everything to do with obeying the rules and playing fairly.
|
This has nothing to do with real competition. Are you saying that the boys shouldn't be allowed to swim at all?
There are reasons gender equality measures are in place. There is nothing wrong with this happening.
|
Physically girls are out classed by males pound for pound.
Its like in golf, on the professional womens scene (LPGA) there are 13 year olds competing. Something you dont see on the PGA tour.
But if the team falls though with out the guys swimming then I see no problem, but if the team with the males constantly wins because of the males then there starts to be a problem.
|
On November 20 2011 13:02 Syth wrote:
So you're saying those boys shouldn't be allowed to swim then?
Seriously, it's school swimming. Who actually cares if boys are competing with girls. Competition is competition. Trust me, people care.
And I'm saying that those boys shouldn't be allowed to swim on the girls' team. If that means that they can't swim for the school at all, because there isn't a boys team, well that's too bad, but it's no worse than not being able to swim because your school doesn't have any swim team. Which, for instance, my high school didn't. It's really not as tragic as you're making it out to be.
Put it differently, suppose that for whatever reason there was a swimming program in a middle school but not the associated high school. Would you say that high schoolers should be able to swim against middle schoolers because of "fairness"? That's a pretty backwards way to look at it, imo.
Remember, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to use the pool. Just that they shouldn't be able to compete against girls in state-sanctioned competition. To me that seems like common sense.
|
good for them, if they want to swim they should be allowed to. Obviously it would be better if they had guys only team, but seriously in swimming you are mainly racing against your own times, it really an individual sport.
Guys can compete in speedos, many do. Girls cannot compete in bikinis from what i know (at least I have never once seen it in like 15 years of swimming, only one piece suits or the full body suits.)
|
So... Girls can join boys teams, but boys can't join girl's teams?
So much for equality, eh?
|
Is this happening in places where there aren't any other schools nearby? When I swam in high school my team had a few guys that came from a different school because theirs didn't have a boys swim team. It seems like this would be a better solution to the problem.
If boys are allowed to swim on the girl's team, then I don't think that they should be allowed to swim in the same events as the girls do. As bad as that sounds I think it's only fair to the girls.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
lol
There is a reason why this is only practiced in Massachusetts: Common sense. Also these boys are a bunch of sissys. "Competing" with girls in a sport that requires muscle power? Probably even proud when they won.
|
I came here expecting guys dressed as girls swimming.
|
I think it should matter. For instance, lets say one of these boys actually is an alright swimmer. So he guys to state championships. If this works anything like Arizona high school state swimming championships, they only take the top 24 people in each event, so he is actively taking that spot from a girl. Then lets say he is a pretty good swimmer and wins girls state as a boy. That just seems wrong to me. Allow him to compete at a different school with a boys team, problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
