Should gender and age specific sports be eliminated in the name of equality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sports are for spectators, mainly --and no one wants to watch a super lopsided game. It's not fun to play or watch. So what would be the point.

Equality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sports are for spectators, mainly --and no one wants to watch a super lopsided game. It's not fun to play or watch. So what would be the point.

Equality?

For who? Is there an angry horde of 10 year old girls being prevented from playing with the men's national team?

Those who have high testosterone through puberty have larger hearts, lungs, vascular systems, and grow stronger, denser bones and more muscle. So they have physical advantages. Eliminating a women's league only means that now women don't have a league to play in, and less people to watch the sport. Changes nothing for the men.

[Anonymous]

Ha. Thought this thread had died. This thread was not about the pro levels, it was about youth levels. It is also not about just gender but also age. Example:


A really good 10 yr old boy plays with a group of good 12 year old girls and a couple weaker 12 yr old boys for balanced competition. In other words, in broader age ranges let girls and boys across ages compete to make a team, regardless of age or sex. Put like talented and atheltic players together. After puberty things will sort itself out naturally, but there still may be some less talented boys playing of girls team and some really good, fast, strong girls playing on a top or near top boys team. Focus on level setting based on ability vs. other factors. Just a theory. Maybe it would never work.