This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It started with the notion that gender-qualifying Semenya (giggle) was an Orwellian and creepy thing to do to a woman. My point, admittedly too obvious to even be noticeable, is that gender-qualifying women's sports is something athletic organizations do to prevent men from dominating women's sports. And then I went off on a tangent about how I think it's a good thing to have separate divisions for men and women and not to treat one division as the Varsity to which a select few women will graduate, because it will emphasize that men are the champions. It is quite clearly the opposite view from Thurgreed's, since he believes that a woman placing midfield in a field of men will be inspirational to young female athletes and their supporters and sponsors, and I think it will be demoralizing.

Perhaps the WNBA is a bad example, since it's universally agreed that it's a different game, though I question cause and effect. And obviously there are great examples of when it isn't (or needn't be) a different game -- things like chess, archery, and maybe the Tour de France. Golf is a wobbler because of the modern importance of long drives. The record holder for all tournament play is 515 yards. Meanwhile, this year's men's champion long driver hit it 400 yards, while the women's world champion hit it 254 yards (into a 40 mph headwind), and she used to be a man.

I basically meant that a sport is entitled to find that the inclusion of men and women in a single competition is either consistent with, or not consistent with, the nature of the demands of their sport, and that it not be considered sexist per se when they decline to "allow" women to participate in the men's division, because there are good reasons why that might be so.

Can women compete in the Tour de France? Just wondering.


eta: Yes, please do google that for me.