EPTBoys swimming as girls - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
| ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On November 20 2011 13:13 cmen15 wrote: Kinda funny back when I use to wrestle, I went to the NY state champs some years ago and i got matched up vs a girl in the third round. I refused to wrestle her and went to the loser bracket. Next round she had to go against the state champ and this kid beat the shit out of her.... I didn't have it in me, to nice of a person lol. Telling a girl "I refuse to allow you to compete with me, girls are not on the same level as boys and should be separated from us" is being nice to her? I think she would disagree. I guarantee you she has way more respect for the state champ than for you. | ||
|
Runnin
208 Posts
On November 21 2011 11:19 Marcus420 wrote: No? Sorry, maybe they dont have a car or something to make it to the next city where there is a "boys team". I never implyed that at all. Ok. I'm not trying to pin the blame on the boys in this case though. I highly doubt they've done anything wrong. I believe the problem comes from higher up, in the institution that runs HS sports in that state. | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On November 20 2011 13:29 qrs wrote: The sensible thing to do here would be to revise the system so that schools could send individual swimmers to compete in regional and state meets, regardless of whether the school officially had a "girls team" or a "boys team". If that were how it worked, then you'd be right about the whole thing being irrelevant. That's currently not how it works, though. This is exactly how the situation should be handled. It is blatantly stupid to have boys directly competing against the girls in swimming events. If a girl practices hard, swims a great race and beats all the other girls, and has to take 2nd place because there happened to be a boy in the event... it's completely unfair, and is a worse offense than banning boys from competing. However, banning boys is wrong too... just as wrong as banning girls from wrestling or football. The boys should be able to join the team and compete, but their results should fall in a separate category for boys. I suppose it's tougher with team events... should boys be banned from being on relay teams? Should boys be banned from field hockey teams? I would say "yes" but I could understand allowing it as well. It's just a situation with no fair solution, someone is going to have to get the short end of the stick. | ||
|
Runnin
208 Posts
On November 21 2011 11:33 LaNague wrote: are sports in the US always centered around the highschool? All this mixing of scholarships, highschool, competetive sports, hobbies seems awefully inapropiate. We have all kinds of clubs here where you can join if you are interested at something. Noone is forced to join competitions, you have the ability to do so, but none of that affects education. I always trained swimming with girls/women, but ofc in competitions i swam against other guys. Its silly not to as its about individual ability. There was almost no other male in my hometown that was my age and was interested in swimming, but this system works well enough to still allow me to do my favorite sport (which requires an expensive location and trained lifeguards and trainers) in a small town. anyways, it is wrong to let males and females compete together in swimming, but its also wrong to not let males wim if females have that possibility. I dont get why males and females cant just be seperated in a competition, its individual anyways. There are club sports here in America, however the majority of athletic competition at the HS age is done through the school. The school team is essentially a "club" team that consists of students of the school. Participation is voluntary and does not affect your academics, you just happen to train at your school and are often coached by one of the teachers at your school. | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On November 20 2011 14:38 Blondinbengt wrote: Could someone explain how high school sports work in terms of funding, girls vs boys teams, meets etc.etc? School sports don't exist in Sweden so I have no idea how this works. Schools have a certain amount of funding to put towards their sports team. This money is supplemented by ticket sales (meaning that popular sports like football will bring in enough money to pay for everything they need and have money left over to share with the other sports). Sometimes there are fundraisers held to help increase the amount of money available for a certain team. Sometimes money runs short, and a team has to just use old broken-down equipment... and if it runs really short, the school stops having a team for that sport. If it's allowed, sometimes a team will get a local business to sponsor them, in exchange for some free advertising on the uniforms or at the event somewhere. High schools then send their teams out to compete against the teams of other high schools in the area. It's just like any local sports league. Nearly all of the time, the boys and girls are competing completely separately. Boys have football, basketball, soccer, basketball... girls have volleyball, gymnastics, basketball, softball... and so on. Also, there's a law called Title IX that says there must be equal opportunity to compete in sports for both males and females. Schools can't heavily fund their boys' teams and spend on special training, pay for travel expenses to compete at national level competitions... and then spend next to nothing on the girls. This also means that girls must be allowed to play on any boys' sports team, if they're good enough to qualify for it. And lately, boys have discovered it also means they're allowed to play on the girls' teams if there's no male equivalent team. | ||
|
PenguinWithNuke
250 Posts
For example, take me, an average swimmer: I can swim faster for a particular event, the 100 breastroke, than a girl (who is the state champion for girls in backstroke events). I'm merely average, as I don't have any championships under my belt, and I am not even close to the all-American time. It's not fair to allow males to compete with females. On November 20 2011 13:10 Fenrax wrote: 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 don't understand what you're saying. Are you insulting the boys? If you are, stop shitting out your mouth. No male takes pride in beating females in strength-based sports. The solution for this is to get a boys team. The boys team can train with the girls team, but just competes separately in meets. I'm not really sure why Massachusetts does it this way. And as a side note, that guy in the article is slow. 23.91 lol (it's close to all-American for females, but not at all for males). And this is Massachusetts?!?!? Wow, my puny midget of a state has faster swimmers. | ||
|
Eschaton
United States1245 Posts
On November 21 2011 12:06 PenguinWithNuke wrote: As a swimmer, I think that this is ridiculous. There is no way in hell that the competition between boys and girls is at all fair. Boys are naturally faster than girls (think muscle density, strength, testosterone), and will always be faster. Also, look at that guy on the podium. He's just a huge pack of muscle. Now look at the girls. Does that look fair to you? For example, take me, an average swimmer: I can swim faster for a particular event, the 100 breastroke, than a girl (who is the state champion for girls in backstroke events). I'm merely average, as I don't have any championships under my belt, and I am not even close to the all-American time. It's not fair to allow males to compete with females. I don't understand what you're saying. Are you insulting the boys? If you are, stop shitting out your mouth. No male takes pride in beating females in strength-based sports. The solution for this is to get a boys team. The boys team can train with the girls team, but just competes separately in meets. I'm not really sure why Massachusetts does it this way. And as a side note, that guy in the article is slow. 23.91 lol (it's close to all-American for females, but not at all for males). And this is Massachusetts?!?!? Wow, my puny midget of a state has faster swimmers. I know right? But I'm thinking that their league is a division for smaller schools, that would explain the lack of enough people for a boys team, and also the slow times. I think i was around 22.5 my senior year in the 50 and got still something like 3rd or 4th in my district. The serious club swimmers compete for the larger high schools in order to get the glorious AAAA state records. Basically I think this is definitely unfair to girls, but not really a problem in the bigger picture; high school swimming isn't really where the competition is. | ||
|
macil222
United States113 Posts
On November 21 2011 07:46 Runnin wrote: Equality does not mean that the state ignores differences between genders. That is absurd and unintelligent to even claim that. Equality means that the state does what it can to provide equally in spite of differences - aka women deserve the same funding for hs sports as men, which results in some schools having to cut mens swimming because sports like football do not have the support to provide a female equivalent. The result is a mens football team and a women's swimming team - an imperfect solution but as I stated the law is not ideal at the moment. For you to claim that pointing out gender differences is the equivalent of societal racism against minorities in the past is one of the most ignorant, offensive, and downright stupid comments I have ever read. Cutting a men's sports team because women need to have equal funding is what is absolutely silly. You are so concerned about people hiding from reality and pretending that gender differences do not exist then I would use that same logic to argue that all sports in school should be unisex, everyone has to tryout for whatever sport they have to play and the best who tryout make the teams. The result due to the biological differences would mean less girls are able to play sports but that should fine since it mimics the reality that they are not as good at sports as men right? Aren't we collectively putting our heads in the sand and pretending that biological differences don't exist when we give women their own sports teams, and we give them separate rankings even when the top woman might be behind the top 20 men? Otherwise why don't we have separate basketball teams for short people and separate football and wrestling teams for skinny guys? But this is getting off topic anyways. What the topic is about guys who want to swim and shouldn't be denied the opportunity to swim and train on a team just because they were born male. People seem to have a problem with it even though it makes no sense because their presence on the team and even at the meets has absolutely 0, that is zero, impact on the other swimmers. This is because there are no opponents at swimming competitions. Consider sports such as swimming, bowling, golf, anything related to track and field or running etc. Let's say there is a track meet and there are separate teams for men and women. On the first day they have the women race together, then record the times for each person, then they have men race together and record times for each person. Then the next day they do the first race with half men and half women and record the scores and repeat for 2nd race. I don't see the difference. Each person will run as fast as they can and get the best time possible no matter what. The men will mostly be faster no matter what. There are no opponents so it doesn't matter who is next to who. | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On November 21 2011 11:35 Chocobo wrote: Telling a girl "I refuse to allow you to compete with me, girls are not on the same level as boys and should be separated from us" is being nice to her? I think she would disagree. I guarantee you she has way more respect for the state champ than for you. Yes, because the person who was brought up to not hurt a woman in any way and stuck with that even though he knew it would be insulting to the girl deserves barely any respect right? Seriously, some people are taught this at an early age (like I was) and it's really hard to simply defy those teachings. The girls swimming had their spotlight taken away (for some reason, not sure why they're being compared to the boy) and this guy could have gone on through the tournament but was kicked away because he stuck to his values. And, if anything, people are saying that this racing in swimming pushes them past their limits to be the best right? So how the hell is putting a boy with the girls bad for the girls? They'd be forcing themselves to try even harder to beat this guy, thereby improving their time. The boy might be at risk, due to him not having too many people to try and overcome according to this competition, but not the girls. | ||
|
Runnin
208 Posts
On November 21 2011 13:14 macil222 wrote: Cutting a men's sports team because women need to have equal funding is what is absolutely silly. You are so concerned about people hiding from reality and pretending that gender differences do not exist then I would use that same logic to argue that all sports in school should be unisex, everyone has to tryout for whatever sport they have to play and the best who tryout make the teams. The result due to the biological differences would mean less girls are able to play sports but that should fine since it mimics the reality that they are not as good at sports as men right? Aren't we collectively putting our heads in the sand and pretending that biological differences don't exist when we give women their own sports teams, and we give them separate rankings even when the top woman might be behind the top 20 men? Otherwise why don't we have separate basketball teams for short people and separate football and wrestling teams for skinny guys? But this is getting off topic anyways. What the topic is about guys who want to swim and shouldn't be denied the opportunity to swim and train on a team just because they were born male. People seem to have a problem with it even though it makes no sense because their presence on the team and even at the meets has absolutely 0, that is zero, impact on the other swimmers. This is because there are no opponents at swimming competitions. Consider sports such as swimming, bowling, golf, anything related to track and field or running etc. Let's say there is a track meet and there are separate teams for men and women. On the first day they have the women race together, then record the times for each person, then they have men race together and record times for each person. Then the next day they do the first race with half men and half women and record the scores and repeat for 2nd race. I don't see the difference. Each person will run as fast as they can and get the best time possible no matter what. The men will mostly be faster no matter what. There are no opponents so it doesn't matter who is next to who. You sure posted a lot of words considering you didn't take a minute to read a single one of mine. I've said several times that biological differences do exist. The fact that you somehow quoted that post and accused me of pretending biological differences don't exist either proves you didn't read what I wrote or that you are a complete moron. You made up some point about cutting mens sports that has nothing to do with this thread AND I have already posted that Title IX is an imperfect law that creates these problems (but you don't know that because you haven't read the thread). There are no opponents at swimming competitions...that is just flat out ignorant. Please refrain from spewing bullshit when you clearly have no experience in these types of sports. Any swimmer or runner will tell you that the competition in a race is one of the most important factors in achieving your best times. There is a reason that the world records in these events are set in races and not in individual time-trials. You also failed to even realize that this boy took home first place at the meet, bumping each and every girl down one slot AND denying one girl the chance to even swim in the finals. The "result" you propose of having few-to-no women playing sports is unacceptable. Sports are a rewarding, character building experience that women deserve to have the opportunity to participate in. There are already wrestling leagues for skinny guys, they are called...wrestling leagues. Wrestling is divided in to weight classes. Again, you're obviously talking out of your ass. These boys shouldn't be denied the opportunity to swim (nobody is saying they shouldn't swim, but, and I feel like a broken record, you didn't read any of the previous posts) this is not the solution to the problem. There are plenty of valid alternatives other than having them compete against girls. They include allowing schools to send individuals to the state-series meets even if they do not have a team, coop programs with another school, allowing the boys to swim in seperate heats in non-state races, etc. TLDR: Everything you have said has been responded to already, except the parts that nobody else has been dumb enough to say | ||
|
Runnin
208 Posts
On November 21 2011 13:25 Dark_Chill wrote: Yes, because the person who was brought up to not hurt a woman in any way and stuck with that even though he knew it would be insulting to the girl deserves barely any respect right? Seriously, some people are taught this at an early age (like I was) and it's really hard to simply defy those teachings. The girls swimming had their spotlight taken away (for some reason, not sure why they're being compared to the boy) and this guy could have gone on through the tournament but was kicked away because he stuck to his values. And, if anything, people are saying that this racing in swimming pushes them past their limits to be the best right? So how the hell is putting a boy with the girls bad for the girls? They'd be forcing themselves to try even harder to beat this guy, thereby improving their time. The boy might be at risk, due to him not having too many people to try and overcome according to this competition, but not the girls. Read. The. OP. The boy isn't just competing in the same race as the girls (which as is denies them a fair opportunity to win their race). He is competing for and winning important races - the races that these girls work year-round to perform in. This isn't some tiny little meet between a few schools, this was the sectional meet for girls. Not only was a girl denied a sectional championship, but there are 9 lanes in a proper swimming pool. That means that the 9th best girl in this sectional was denied the chance of even racing, through no fault of her own. It means that one less girl will qualify for the State meet that follows the sectional. Do you understand why they're being compared to the boy now? | ||
|
Pyskee
United States620 Posts
On November 20 2011 13:02 Kuja wrote: Serious question, as a girl, are you allowed to compete in Bikinis? and Speedos for guys? For bikinis. I don't think so. I did high school swim for 3 years and only saw a girl in a bikini once, which was at practice because the chick couldn't find her actual suit that morning. Even if you could, you wouldn't want to though because it creates drag. As for speedos, yes you are. They even have it as a uniform option. My senior year my friends and I all wore speedos for shits and giggles. Actually, scratch that. Only I wore the speedo because they chickened out. Pussies. | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On November 21 2011 13:55 Runnin wrote: Read. The. OP. The boy isn't just competing in the same race as the girls (which as is denies them a fair opportunity to win their race). He is competing for and winning important races - the races that these girls work year-round to perform in. This isn't some tiny little meet between a few schools, this was the sectional meet for girls. Not only was a girl denied a sectional championship, but there are 9 lanes in a proper swimming pool. That means that the 9th best girl in this sectional was denied the chance of even racing, through no fault of her own. It means that one less girl will qualify for the State meet that follows the sectional. Do you understand why they're being compared to the boy now? I don't understand why they're being compared to the boy. Many people have brought up how the boy shouldn't be allowed in the girl's competitions, but instead be in the boy's own competition. I was talking more about him practicing with them, which some people in the thread have argued against. Do you know why in the hell they would compare him to the boy, because you gave the impression you did with your last line. | ||
|
macil222
United States113 Posts
On November 21 2011 13:49 Runnin wrote: You sure posted a lot of words considering you didn't take a minute to read a single one of mine. I've said several times that biological differences do exist. The fact that you somehow quoted that post and accused me of pretending biological differences don't exist either proves you didn't read what I wrote or that you are a complete moron. You made up some point about cutting mens sports that has nothing to do with this thread AND I have already posted that Title IX is an imperfect law that creates these problems (but you don't know that because you haven't read the thread). There are no opponents at swimming competitions...that is just flat out ignorant. Please refrain from spewing bullshit when you clearly have no experience in these types of sports. Any swimmer or runner will tell you that the competition in a race is one of the most important factors in achieving your best times. There is a reason that the world records in these events are set in races and not in individual time-trials. You also failed to even realize that this boy took home first place at the meet, bumping each and every girl down one slot AND denying one girl the chance to even swim in the finals. The "result" you propose of having few-to-no women playing sports is unacceptable. Sports are a rewarding, character building experience that women deserve to have the opportunity to participate in. There are already wrestling leagues for skinny guys, they are called...wrestling leagues. Wrestling is divided in to weight classes. Again, you're obviously talking out of your ass. These boys shouldn't be denied the opportunity to swim (nobody is saying they shouldn't swim, but, and I feel like a broken record, you didn't read any of the previous posts) this is not the solution to the problem. There are plenty of valid alternatives other than having them compete against girls. They include allowing schools to send individuals to the state-series meets even if they do not have a team, coop programs with another school, allowing the boys to swim in seperate heats in non-state races, etc. TLDR: Everything you have said has been responded to already, except the parts that nobody else has been dumb enough to say I did read the thread and your post. You complain about people pretending that biological differences don't exist then you support having separate sports and rankings for females to try to hide the biological differences. You need to pretend to an extent that biological differences do not exist in order to pretend that a girl being the best girl swimmer deserves as much reward as the best boy swimmer even if there are 10 faster boys. I'm pointing out that on the one hand you criticize people for wanting forced equality of one kind while you support forced equality of another kind. Think about the spirit of title ix rather than it's flawed implementation. They want everyone to have an equal chance to play sports, where girls used to have a hard time because of so many all male sports. But it is clearly within the spirit of the law to allow a boy to swim with the girls if there is no boys team. That is what this is really about...boys who want to swim. These boys shouldn't be denied the opportunity to swim (nobody is saying they shouldn't swim, but, and I feel like a broken record, you didn't read any of the previous posts) this is not the solution to the problem. There are plenty of valid alternatives other than having them compete against girls. They include allowing schools to send individuals to the state-series meets even if they do not have a team, coop programs with another school, allowing the boys to swim in seperate heats in non-state races, etc. Who cares if they compete against girls? As long as they all get to participate and do their best. The girls aren't the best, they weren't, and they wont be regardless of what number or skill level of boys on the team. I don't think it should matter so much for them to compete only against other girls. You see people are saying it is unfair because the best girl on the team might be outclassed by an average guy..but this happens all the time in sports anyways. You can look at any sport in any era and find someone who is #2 who would have been #1 in another era. Imagine if you were the best on your boys basketball team and a very strong 7 foot tall kid transfers to your school and starts playing, then you are suddenly #2. Do you say no, it is not fair, he should only be allowed to play with other tall kids? But there is no tall kids team cause he is the only 7 foot kid in the school so you let him play on the team that is available. And I agree with this: The "result" you propose of having few-to-no women playing sports is unacceptable. Sports are a rewarding, character building experience that women deserve to have the opportunity to participate in. If a boy likes to swim and there is a girls swim team and not a boys swim team then he should be allowed to swim with the girls team. So what if he wins a lot? The sport should still provide all of the benefits that you just listed for all of the participants right? And then you use wrestling as your example which is the one sport that comes close to doing it right by using weight classes. There are still issues cause some boys don't like the idea of "fighting" a girl but if a girl wrestles then she will wrestle boys who are in the same weight class. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
State law mandates this in the name of "equal opportunity", but really it's anything but. And herein lies the source of all this discussion: confusion about equal opportunity. It really is equal opportunity, it's just you have a pretty notion of what results you should get afterwards. Hear this all the time about male/female CEO's and the pay gap. Equality of oppotunity yet no equality of result. Therefore, complain about the results and put a little fix in there to ensure you get what you like. Tricky thing about freedom right there. | ||
|
Runnin
208 Posts
If a boy likes to swim and there is a girls swim team and not a boys swim team then he should be allowed to swim with the girls team. So what if he wins a lot? The sport should still provide all of the benefits that you just listed for all of the participants right? No. There should be, and are, alternative measures for allowing the boy to swim. They have been mentioned. Putting him in the girls competition is unacceptable. The girls in this sectional meet are swimming at a very high level. At this level these girls are swimming for more than just fun - the times they are swimming suggest a competitive passion and dedication that deserves to be properly rewarded with success. Two girls will miss out on the experience of competing in the biggest HS girls swim meet because of this. One lost a sectional championship. What's next? Do you propose we eliminate age grouping in athletics? Sure, toss the 9 year olds in with the teenagers. As long as they can participate and try their best! There is no solution to height advantage in basketball - every sport has some trait that it favors and it is unavoidable. Luckily we have enough sports where there is always a competitive outlet for any given body type, except that in nearly every sport (gymnastics is the off-the-top-of-my-head exception) men are advantaged over women. By separating sports by gender, we allow for women to have the same options that men do, to be able to find an athletic endeavor that suits them. Competition is what drives people to succeed. This places a massive obstacle in the way of women trying to compete in swimming, and if it was widespread would curb their involvement. edit: butchered the nested quotes, removed them | ||
|
Runnin
208 Posts
On November 21 2011 14:59 Danglars wrote: Tender affection for equality of result shown here. Hey, if you make and enforce laws like this state-wide, you gotta be prepared to accept the consequences. And herein lies the source of all this discussion: confusion about equal opportunity. It really is equal opportunity, it's just you have a pretty notion of what results you should get afterwards. Hear this all the time about male/female CEO's and the pay gap. Equality of oppotunity yet no equality of result. Therefore, complain about the results and put a little fix in there to ensure you get what you like. Tricky thing about freedom right there. Pay gaps are irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing well documented and proven biological differences that result in women being disadvantaged in swimming. Their results will be lower. Until there is definitive proof that men are more intelligent and capable in business than women, pay gaps among CEOs will be a legitimate discussion. For the time being there is no definitive proof that women are inferior in intelligence or business acumen than men, so inequality in "results" or pay can't reflect that. You'd need your own thread to have a sociological discussion about why female CEOs make less than men, and there could be several differing but legitimate arguments. This case is much more clear-cut. | ||
|
macil222
United States113 Posts
On November 21 2011 15:01 Runnin wrote: If a boy likes to swim and there is a girls swim team and not a boys swim team then he should be allowed to swim with the girls team. So what if he wins a lot? The sport should still provide all of the benefits that you just listed for all of the participants right? No. There should be, and are, alternative measures for allowing the boy to swim. They have been mentioned. Putting him in the girls competition is unacceptable. The girls in this sectional meet are swimming at a very high level. At this level these girls are swimming for more than just fun - the times they are swimming suggest a competitive passion and dedication that deserves to be properly rewarded with success. Two girls will miss out on the experience of competing in the biggest HS girls swim meet because of this. One lost a sectional championship. What's next? Do you propose we eliminate age grouping in athletics? Sure, toss the 9 year olds in with the teenagers. As long as they can participate and try their best! There is no solution to height advantage in basketball - every sport has some trait that it favors and it is unavoidable. Luckily we have enough sports where there is always a competitive outlet for any given body type, except that in nearly every sport (gymnastics is the off-the-top-of-my-head exception) men are advantaged over women. By separating sports by gender, we allow for women to have the same options that men do, to be able to find an athletic endeavor that suits them. Competition is what drives people to succeed. This places a massive obstacle in the way of women trying to compete in swimming, and if it was widespread would curb their involvement. edit: butchered the nested quotes, removed them You've suggested alternatives but nothing that guarantees the boys will have the same access to reward and success. By separating sports by gender, we allow for women to have the same options that men do, to be able to find an athletic endeavor that suits them. This goes back to why and how I responded to you in the first place? Why is it so important to balance options available to men vs women but not big vs small, weak vs strong, smart vs stupid. You are the one who wanted to point out the biological differences that give men an advantage...so taking that into account it doesn't make sense to expect that females should be (as a gender, not individually) equally rewarded for something that they are not as good at. Give me a skinny nerd football league so I can have a chance to be the best and earn an athletic scholarship to school for the kids who are the best football players (in the league of course). | ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
| ||
| ||
