Governmental policies deny individuals federal aid based on gender and life choices.

Those would be great points.. if we're true lmao. Where are you getting this stuff it couldn't be real life experience must be a blog somewhere.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha
I can see this through a motivational model and a competitive model theory structure, as it will press women who are competing to become more focused on being 'the best' and not 'the best woman'. I suppose my next questions would be: Have there been studies to show marked improvement in performance with co-ed integration?

No clue, haven't studied it. I'm just going by what I learned in college with the weird phenomenon of "impossible hurdles" only being impossible until somebody jumps it and then suddenly several people can jump it.

If women athletes are only going against other women athletes, in a sport that systemically limits their expectations based on gender, who knows what would happen if those limitations vanished?

This is total nonsense!

How are women systemically limited?

What you are inadvertently doing is basically saying all female athletes are not training as hard as they can because they are not expected to be that good.

So on one hand, you will bend over backwards to explain why the statistics on custody don't prove women have an advantage because of their sex, but on the other hand you think mysterious systemic advantages are the reason women don't do as well as men in sports?

This is unreal.

You keep skimming over what I said. I never said they are "systemically limited". I said their performance expectations are limited. Meaning, their metrics for success is lessened simply because they are women. So they train to meet those expectations.

If those expectations were raised, you don't think their performance would improve? To what limit?

I think your premise is flawed. Their expectations are based on their performance.

As any elite athlete will tell you, they don't focus on other expectations, they make their own.

Are you claiming that a woman sprinter for example is saying "Hey I did the 100 meter in 11 seconds! No one expects me to do better, so I am done training!"

This is ridiculous, and actually sexist!

I am sorry you don't want to admit it, but no amount of expectations changing will make women biologically change to be able to compete with men in sports.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm implying. It's why I brought up that phenomenon. All athletes limit themselves to what they think is possible. You don't try to jump over a house because it's impossible. However, if your neighbor did it, don't tell me you wouldn't suddenly be improving your jumping by trying.

Sprint records are a great example of that. Once a new record is made, athletic performance improves for a whole ton of athletes.

I never said it would work. I just said it made sense.

It does not make sense.

The reason is biological limitation.

If I saw someone jump over a house, I would not think "Geez, if I train hard I could do that!"

I would think they cheated through drugs or technologies or in some other way, because that is such a feet that it is many times over what any person has ever remotely accomplished.

In the same way, any remotely honest female athlete would tell you that there is no way they could compete with professional male athletes in contact sport, and in almost any sport for that matter.

It is not even a close area for debate. If you believe in any science, it is quite easy to look at male and female body structure and see that the differences would make it devastating for women to be in these sports with men.

No amount of mental exercise or trick or changing of expectations would even crack a dent in that.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Women and men have different levels of performance capability.

Women will not be able to beat men on the power of their minds alone. Take it from someone who was a high level collegiate athlete at one point. I did the heptathlon, 100m and 400m hurdles and high jump. Women were not going to outperform men. Our hurdles were even set lower, and no I was not interested in trying to break that barrier. It would have taken me out of a natural running stride which is what the best hurdlers are all trying to achieve as much as possible.

Then what's the harm of opening it up for a possibility and not changing what it takes to be recruited to a team? If no women make the cut, then no women make the cut.

But don't you think that, within a generation or two, women athletes would start making the cut?


ps edit - Keep in mind, in my mental daydream of perfect scenarios, no team would be penalized for having an all-male team nor be rewarded for having men. In this "league", sex would simply be indifferent in determining who gets on the team.

First off, no women would not start making the cut. Yes, there would be girls that could make a highschool mens track team. But once you get to college, you may find the odd woman or two that could be at the bottom of a team.

But once you get to an Olympic level, no you would not find woman that would make the cut.

And that is just the non contact sports.

The hypothetical harm is that you are suggesting things like female quarterbacks. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that if women are delusional enough to step into football with NFL players, they would be killed or injured for life.

The real world harm is that this is the exact same mentality that leads to calls for equal amounts of women firefighters, etc. And then we see that most women can't make the cut, the next step is to demand to lower the standards.

The harm is that ignoring the differences in biology between men and women has led to all sorts of problems. And it also convinces some women that people that believe in these biological differnces are somehow sexist.

It is also harming academia by denying science in the name of spreading this lie to make people feel good.

So yes, there is a lot of harm.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Women and men have different levels of performance capability.

Women will not be able to beat men on the power of their minds alone. Take it from someone who was a high level collegiate athlete at one point. I did the heptathlon, 100m and 400m hurdles and high jump. Women were not going to outperform men. Our hurdles were even set lower, and no I was not interested in trying to break that barrier. It would have taken me out of a natural running stride which is what the best hurdlers are all trying to achieve as much as possible.

Then what's the harm of opening it up for a possibility and not changing what it takes to be recruited to a team? If no women make the cut, then no women make the cut.

But don't you think that, within a generation or two, women athletes would start making the cut?


ps edit - Keep in mind, in my mental daydream of perfect scenarios, no team would be penalized for having an all-male team nor be rewarded for having men. In this "league", sex would simply be indifferent in determining who gets on the team.

First off, no women would not start making the cut. Yes, there would be girls that could make a highschool mens track team. But once you get to college, you may find the odd woman or two that could be at the bottom of a team.

But once you get to an Olympic level, no you would not find woman that would make the cut.

And that is just the non contact sports.

The hypothetical harm is that you are suggesting things like female quarterbacks. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that if women are delusional enough to step into football with NFL players, they would be killed or injured for life.

The real world harm is that this is the exact same mentality that leads to calls for equal amounts of women firefighters, etc. And then we see that most women can't make the cut, the next step is to demand to lower the standards.

The harm is that ignoring the differences in biology between men and women has led to all sorts of problems. And it also convinces some women that people that believe in these biological differnces are somehow sexist.

It is also harming academia by denying science in the name of spreading this lie to make people feel good.

So yes, there is a lot of harm.

Most of your points are countered in the post your are replying to.

If a woman athlete makes the cut, she does so because she's on-par with the rest of the athletes. If a 300-pound linebacker built like a truck happens to be a woman, she's not going to be more likely to be injured because of her vagina.

And my hypothetical specifically excluded the possibility of standards being lowered to "make it fair".

In other words, why even argue it? Why not just get out of the way and see what happens instead of telling people it can't happen?

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Women and men have different levels of performance capability.

Women will not be able to beat men on the power of their minds alone. Take it from someone who was a high level collegiate athlete at one point. I did the heptathlon, 100m and 400m hurdles and high jump. Women were not going to outperform men. Our hurdles were even set lower, and no I was not interested in trying to break that barrier. It would have taken me out of a natural running stride which is what the best hurdlers are all trying to achieve as much as possible.

Then what's the harm of opening it up for a possibility and not changing what it takes to be recruited to a team? If no women make the cut, then no women make the cut.

But don't you think that, within a generation or two, women athletes would start making the cut?


ps edit - Keep in mind, in my mental daydream of perfect scenarios, no team would be penalized for having an all-male team nor be rewarded for having men. In this "league", sex would simply be indifferent in determining who gets on the team.

First off, no women would not start making the cut. Yes, there would be girls that could make a highschool mens track team. But once you get to college, you may find the odd woman or two that could be at the bottom of a team.

But once you get to an Olympic level, no you would not find woman that would make the cut.

And that is just the non contact sports.

The hypothetical harm is that you are suggesting things like female quarterbacks. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that if women are delusional enough to step into football with NFL players, they would be killed or injured for life.

The real world harm is that this is the exact same mentality that leads to calls for equal amounts of women firefighters, etc. And then we see that most women can't make the cut, the next step is to demand to lower the standards.

The harm is that ignoring the differences in biology between men and women has led to all sorts of problems. And it also convinces some women that people that believe in these biological differnces are somehow sexist.

It is also harming academia by denying science in the name of spreading this lie to make people feel good.

So yes, there is a lot of harm.

Most of your points are countered in the post your are replying to.

If a woman athlete makes the cut, she does so because she's on-par with the rest of the athletes. If a 300-pound linebacker built like a truck happens to be a woman, she's not going to be more likely to be injured because of her vagina.

And my hypothetical specifically excluded the possibility of standards being lowered to "make it fair".

In other words, why even argue it? Why not just get out of the way and see what happens instead of telling people it can't happen?

I think you need to read up on studies of the biological differences between men and women.

That 300lb linebacker lady would get crushed.

Its not because she has a vagina, its because of things such as muscle mass, bone density, testosterone levels. You sound very naive here.

I don;t think its a good idea to "Get out of the way" and let it happen because people will get seriously hurt.

And again, there is no rule that women can't play in the NFL. Yet no woman has even remotely came close.

Again, ignoring biological differences like you are doing is not only dangerous for these hypothetical female athletes, but it also hurts academia, and makes people angry over perceived slights that are not slights at all, only biology.

a reply to: Grambler

I would not find it outside the realm of possibility that you may find one or two girls who could kick or punt at collegiate level. The problem is that they would also occasionally be called upon to make a tackle. How many women could tackle a kick or punt returner?

I know the easy response is that most kickers can't, but the ones on my collegiate alma mater have saved more than a few scores because they will take out the kick or punt returner on a busted coverage.

a reply to: Abysha

The only women athletes who may make the cut are the ones who have XY chromosomes, but by that time, women's sports will mostly be a farce anyhow. In order to compete with women who aren't, women who are will be juicing to provide their bodies with enough testosterone to have any hope of competing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Grambler

I would not find it outside the realm of possibility that you may find one or two girls who could kick or punt at collegiate level. The problem is that they would also occasionally be called upon to make a tackle. How many women could tackle a kick or punt returner?

I know the easy response is that most kickers can't, but the ones on my collegiate alma mater have saved more than a few scores because they will take out the kick or punt returner on a busted coverage.

That would be a possibility.

But imagine this happening to a woman.



But again, when it comes to not straight contact in sports, a very special woman could make it.

For example, I see no reason a woman knuckleball pitcher couldn't make it. A female golfer would have a severe strength disadvantage, but could make up with for it with an incredible short game.

And so forth.

But the idea that its just expectations holding women back is insane and dangerous.

a reply to: Grambler

Oh, definitely any woman going onto the field would be a target. I wouldn't want the job.

Realistically, there are going to be very few women who would have the incredible ability necessary to make that cut. I trained with some Olympic level talent on both the men's and women's side. Even the best of the women weren't making the lower end cut for the men's team.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Grambler

Oh, definitely any woman going onto the field would be a target. I wouldn't want the job.

Realistically, there are going to be very few women who would have the incredible ability necessary to make that cut. I trained with some Olympic level talent on both the men's and women's side. Even the best of the women weren't making the lower end cut for the men's team.

Here is the things though, there is no shame in that.

Its ok to realize biological differences, this doesn't diminish women in any way. There are plenty of things women tend to be better at, many of which I find to be more important than sports.

And women athletes are still pushing their bodies to their limits, and doing incredible things.

a reply to: Grambler

I have no issue with any of it.

Trust me. We all puke the same after the hard interval workouts.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Women and men have different levels of performance capability.

Women will not be able to beat men on the power of their minds alone. Take it from someone who was a high level collegiate athlete at one point. I did the heptathlon, 100m and 400m hurdles and high jump. Women were not going to outperform men. Our hurdles were even set lower, and no I was not interested in trying to break that barrier. It would have taken me out of a natural running stride which is what the best hurdlers are all trying to achieve as much as possible.

Then what's the harm of opening it up for a possibility and not changing what it takes to be recruited to a team? If no women make the cut, then no women make the cut.

But don't you think that, within a generation or two, women athletes would start making the cut?


ps edit - Keep in mind, in my mental daydream of perfect scenarios, no team would be penalized for having an all-male team nor be rewarded for having men. In this "league", sex would simply be indifferent in determining who gets on the team.

First off, no women would not start making the cut. Yes, there would be girls that could make a highschool mens track team. But once you get to college, you may find the odd woman or two that could be at the bottom of a team.

But once you get to an Olympic level, no you would not find woman that would make the cut.

And that is just the non contact sports.

The hypothetical harm is that you are suggesting things like female quarterbacks. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that if women are delusional enough to step into football with NFL players, they would be killed or injured for life.

The real world harm is that this is the exact same mentality that leads to calls for equal amounts of women firefighters, etc. And then we see that most women can't make the cut, the next step is to demand to lower the standards.

The harm is that ignoring the differences in biology between men and women has led to all sorts of problems. And it also convinces some women that people that believe in these biological differnces are somehow sexist.

It is also harming academia by denying science in the name of spreading this lie to make people feel good.

So yes, there is a lot of harm.

Most of your points are countered in the post your are replying to.

If a woman athlete makes the cut, she does so because she's on-par with the rest of the athletes. If a 300-pound linebacker built like a truck happens to be a woman, she's not going to be more likely to be injured because of her vagina.

And my hypothetical specifically excluded the possibility of standards being lowered to "make it fair".

In other words, why even argue it? Why not just get out of the way and see what happens instead of telling people it can't happen?

I think you need to read up on studies of the biological differences between men and women.

That 300lb linebacker lady would get crushed.

Its not because she has a vagina, its because of things such as muscle mass, bone density, testosterone levels. You sound very naive here.

I don;t think its a good idea to "Get out of the way" and let it happen because people will get seriously hurt.

And again, there is no rule that women can't play in the NFL. Yet no woman has even remotely came close.

Again, ignoring biological differences like you are doing is not only dangerous for these hypothetical female athletes, but it also hurts academia, and makes people angry over perceived slights that are not slights at all, only biology.

Alright, I give up. I feel like we are off-topic here, anyway.

I'll just leave it with saying it's something I'd like to see someday.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

The only women athletes who may make the cut are the ones who have XY chromosomes, but by that time, women's sports will mostly be a farce anyhow. In order to compete with women who aren't, women who are will be juicing to provide their bodies with enough testosterone to have any hope of competing.

And that's whole other can of worms, lol. But speaking personally, as a woman with XY (I assume, never tested it), I am nowhere near as strong as I was years ago. Bone density, muscle mass, etc. All based on hormones if there isn't training to compensate.

But I see what you're saying. I do still think, at the very least, there would be a few that would make the cut eventually but I'm no sports scientist.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Some of those screaming the loudest for "equality", should asked to go up against a NFL lineman. Let's see how equal they really want to be. Or does "equal" mean "special treatment because I'm a Woman and feel Men owe me something". There are many things a woman can not do as well as a man.
That's a fact that they're gonna have to learn to live with.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: DBCowboy

Some of those screaming the loudest for "equality", should asked to go up against a NFL lineman. Let's see how equal they really want to be. Or does "equal" mean "special treatment because I'm a Woman and feel Men owe me something". There are many things a woman can not do as well as a man.
That's a fact that they're gonna have to learn to live with.

Yes, and there are also things a man cannot do as well as a woman.

Look at my job sometime. Most of the employees are female. Women tend to have better facility with language just as men tend to be better with spatial ability.

There is no shame in any of it. We were meant to complement each other, form partnerships, not always be in direct competition.

a reply to: DAVID64

It's often my reply when anyone brings up the topic of equality.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm sorry. Didn't mean to make it sound like I think women are inferior in any way and I agree there are many things women do better. I was speaking to the rabid feminists, who are not actually talking about equality, but a use it as a way to "get back" at men. You know what I mean?

Another inequality of Obama admin,liberals have been trying for years to destroy rights in the US,if men and women are equal laws should reflect such,just another example of progressives,and I hardly call that progressive

a reply to: KaDeCo

Selective Service should be disbanded immediately. We don't have a draft army anymore. We have a mercenary *ahem* professional army (heh same difference). This shouldn't even be about gender differences. It is just wrong to continue this antiquated policy.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm sorry. Didn't mean to make it sound like I think women are inferior in any way and I agree there are many things women do better. I was speaking to the rabid feminists, who are not actually talking about equality, but a use it as a way to "get back" at men. You know what I mean?

I didn't think you were. I was just pointing out that we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Right now, it just seems like women have more weaknesses to some because so many fingers are pointing at such a narrow set of skills to highlight this, but there are plenty of others and men don't excel at all of them.