i think sport, exspecially in schools,
should always be mixed.
Also i think the competetivness of american school sport is kind of toxic,
it should be about having fun
Ultimate Frisbee did this by forcing a certain number of boys/girl per team. If you don’t impose that you end up with a boys team anyway at high level.
i think sport, exspecially in schools, should always be mixed.
Girls’ teams exist entirely to guarantee girls a number of slots, on the presumption that on average in most sports once you hit puberty generally the boys will start to dramatically outperform the girls due to things like size, upper body strength and other traits that are broadly connected to testosterone levels. Then you have things like chess, where you still have a women’s league, but that basically exists because “not enough” women play chess and the notion is that a smaller talent pool broadly means easier competition that will in turn be more approachable.
Mixed teams in school sports as a general practice won’t happen unless specific minimums are mandated, because it would impact competitiveness.
At the same time, under Title IX, if there is no girl’s team and a girl wants to play a sport she must be allowed to try out and must be allowed to play if she can pass try outs. The reverse is not required under current interpretations, leading to a weirdly discriminatory interpretation of a law banning discrimination.
i think sport, exspecially in schools, should always be mixed
At the middle school age range, girls are typically bigger and stronger than their male peers. Boys don’t catch up until 14-16, at which point they rapidly put on height and mass to exceed their girl peers.
And what about it?
It’s been demonstrated within equality movements that statistical biological strength corresponding to sex does not always correspond to actual performance.
Mixed sports will allow a more inclusive learning style, which technically will allow a greater variety of skills to be develop and more opportunities for the future.
It’s been demonstrated within equality movements that statistical biological strength corresponding to sex does not always correspond to actual performance.
Depends heavily on the sport and the quality of coaching. Direct contact sports - football in particular - present real risks to the players when there’s a big disparity in size and strength.
But then there’s an argument that middle/high school contact sports shouldn’t be allowed to begin with, precisely because of the risk of injury.
Yeah, that will work out well. I cannot think of a sport that is played in school that would fair to the girls if all sports were mixed teams. By the time kids are 13-14 years old, the boys are starting to get to be bigger, taller, faster, and stronger. And the disparity only gets worse as they age.
And one of the driving tenants of sports IS to teach competitiveness.
Why should we be teaching competitiveness? That’s how you turn society into individuals who only look out for their own needs and are apathetic when you do things like a fascist coup. Oh wait…
Nah, I’d much rather be teaching kids cooperation.
(Sports are still great, but not for the reason of teaching competitiveness).
This is basketball, a sport that rewards tallness. By eighth grade boys are on average taller than girls. Even before you look at other gender differences, girls would be at significant disadvantage.
Many/most people are competitive, and competitiveness doesn’t have to be toxic. It’s fine for you not to be competitive, but people are, and it’s unreasonable to ask them to repress that part of their personality
i think sport, exspecially in schools, should always be mixed. Also i think the competetivness of american school sport is kind of toxic, it should be about having fun
Ultimate Frisbee did this by forcing a certain number of boys/girl per team. If you don’t impose that you end up with a boys team anyway at high level.
Girls’ teams exist entirely to guarantee girls a number of slots, on the presumption that on average in most sports once you hit puberty generally the boys will start to dramatically outperform the girls due to things like size, upper body strength and other traits that are broadly connected to testosterone levels. Then you have things like chess, where you still have a women’s league, but that basically exists because “not enough” women play chess and the notion is that a smaller talent pool broadly means easier competition that will in turn be more approachable.
Mixed teams in school sports as a general practice won’t happen unless specific minimums are mandated, because it would impact competitiveness.
At the same time, under Title IX, if there is no girl’s team and a girl wants to play a sport she must be allowed to try out and must be allowed to play if she can pass try outs. The reverse is not required under current interpretations, leading to a weirdly discriminatory interpretation of a law banning discrimination.
At the middle school age range, girls are typically bigger and stronger than their male peers. Boys don’t catch up until 14-16, at which point they rapidly put on height and mass to exceed their girl peers.
And what about it? It’s been demonstrated within equality movements that statistical biological strength corresponding to sex does not always correspond to actual performance.
Mixed sports will allow a more inclusive learning style, which technically will allow a greater variety of skills to be develop and more opportunities for the future.
Depends heavily on the sport and the quality of coaching. Direct contact sports - football in particular - present real risks to the players when there’s a big disparity in size and strength.
But then there’s an argument that middle/high school contact sports shouldn’t be allowed to begin with, precisely because of the risk of injury.
So what you’re essentially saying is we should make decisions based on the individuals weight class rather than gender?
That would be the logical thing to do.
Although, even then no public school should be sponsoring full contact sports, full stop.
Yeah, that will work out well. I cannot think of a sport that is played in school that would fair to the girls if all sports were mixed teams. By the time kids are 13-14 years old, the boys are starting to get to be bigger, taller, faster, and stronger. And the disparity only gets worse as they age.
And one of the driving tenants of sports IS to teach competitiveness.
Why should we be teaching competitiveness? That’s how you turn society into individuals who only look out for their own needs and are apathetic when you do things like a fascist coup. Oh wait…
Nah, I’d much rather be teaching kids cooperation.
(Sports are still great, but not for the reason of teaching competitiveness).
Competition is literally the basis of almost every sport. How would hockey, for example, be played without competition?
I’m saying we shouldn’t teach competitiveness as a value in and of itself. Competition in sports is fine.
This is basketball, a sport that rewards tallness. By eighth grade boys are on average taller than girls. Even before you look at other gender differences, girls would be at significant disadvantage.
Many/most people are competitive, and competitiveness doesn’t have to be toxic. It’s fine for you not to be competitive, but people are, and it’s unreasonable to ask them to repress that part of their personality
can everyone play basketball in us schools (if they offer it) or is this like limited (i mean tryouts?)