Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only extremism involved is people insisting men can be women and vice versa.
Girl’s have typically been allowed to play on a boy’s team when no girl’s team is available, such as in football. You occasionally, very rarely see girls join and they are of no threat to the boy’s on the team due to biological differences.
Yes, that’s what I just said.
So you agree that sports should not necessarily be segregated by sex.
This is why I agree with this solution:
“The exemption allows for discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender identity only in ‘any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant’.”
So you agree that sports should not necessarily be segregated by sex.
This is why I agree with this solution:
“The exemption allows for discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender identity only in ‘any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant’.”
I don’t think males should be allowed to compete on the girl’s teams because they have biological advantages which make it very unfair to the girls. I don’t think many boys or men would be threatened by competing against a girl.
I don’t think males should be allowed to compete on the girl’s teams because they have biological advantages which make it very unfair to the girls. I don’t think many boys or men would be threatened by competing against a girl.
Didn’t say they would be, generally. Although there are exceptions.
But we know there’s going to be some who won’t want to allow girls on the boys team because “reasons”.
If you enact full bio segregation you’ve just allowed boys teams to not admit girls because they just don’t want to.
So again, this is a good solution:
“The exemption allows for discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender identity only in ‘any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant’.”
For this purpose:
“The objective of the exemption is to restrict competitive sporting activity to people who
can ‘effectively compete’48 with each other.
This is intended to recognise that ‘biological differences between men and women are relevant to competitive sporting activities’.49 It can be understood as ensuring a ‘level playing field’.”
Didn’t say they would be, generally. Although there are exceptions.
But we know there’s going to be some who won’t want to allow girls on the boys team because “reasons”.
If you enact bio segregation you’ve just allowed boys teams to not admit girls because they just don’t want to.
So again, this is a good solution:
“The exemption allows for discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender identity only in ‘any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant’.”
For this purpose:
“The objective of the exemption is to restrict competitive sporting activity to people who
can ‘effectively compete’48 with each other.
This is intended to recognise that ‘biological differences between men and women are relevant to competitive sporting activities’.49 It can be understood as ensuring a ‘level playing field’.”
I believe the op already pointed out biological differences in most of the sports you claimed did not have advantages for males over females. It’s subjective at best.
So you agree that sports should not necessarily be segregated by sex.
This is why I agree with this solution:
“The exemption allows for discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender identity only in ‘any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant’.”
Once again, this is subjective.
Men have a biological advantage in tennis, volleyball, baseball, and other sports, but there are science deniers who would not agree that men have the advantage with stamina, strength, or physique for those sports.
I believe the op already pointed out biological differences in most of the sports you claimed did not have advantages for males over females. It’s subjective at best.
No, he pointed out the differences in cross country running, when I was talking about cross country equestrian events.
And he asked what sports exist where women and men compete in the same events.
It’s not subjective that women and men compete equally in those sports I listed, that’s how the sports are run. That’s a matter of fact, not subjectivity.
I gave no opinion on the advantages of being male or female in those sports.
The Act contains a permanent exemption in relation to ‘competitive sporting activity’.44 This is commonly referred to as the ‘single-sex competition’ exemption, although it does not operate to make all single-sex or single-gender sporting competitions lawful.
The exemption allows for discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender identity only in ‘any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant’.
The objective of the exemption is to restrict competitive sporting activity to people who
can ‘effectively compete’48 with each other.
This is intended to recognise that ‘biological differences between men and women are relevant to competitive sporting activities’.49 It can be understood as ensuring a ‘level playing field’.”
Has this group specified which sports would be classified as ones where biological differences are not relevant? I'm sure there are some, but I'm having trouble coming up with a list. Bowling? Archery? Horsemanship? I'm not sure.
No, he pointed out the differences in cross country running, when I was talking about cross country equestrian events.
And he asked what sports exist where women and men compete in the same events.
It’s not subjective that women and men compete equally in those sports I listed, that’s how the sports are run. That’s a matter of fact, not subjectivity.
I gave no opinion on the advantages of being male or female in those sports.
There was a follow up post after that exchange.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Men have slightly faster reaction times and men have quicker ability to track visual motion.
Men have a biological advantage in tennis, volleyball, baseball, and other sports, but there are science deniers who would not agree that men have the advantage with stamina, strength, or physique for those sports.
If it’s subjective, then what’s the argument here? It’s not subjective at all IMHO.
If the guidelines/rules exist, then the people who run the clubs/events/international bodies for those sports are free to define their policies. Which are pretty straightforward. They can leave politics out if it.
As I said, not everyone is going to be happy.
If you segregate sports by sex, no exemptions, then you have effectively kicked women out of sports where they do actually compete with men, like horse racing, motorsports, etc.
For the many biological differences between men and women, each sex having some natural advantages?
Keep sports segregated by sex as is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
