Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.
Comments
-
It doesn’t shoot my own argument down? I’ve argued for more investment into women’s sports, on its own merits, not because it needs to be as popular as men’s sports or anything else, but on its own merits.
If more resources are invested in women’s sports, and coverage is increased, then the sport’s popularity increases with more exposure to a wider audience, and the investment pays for itself, as opposed to the current situation where I suggested that women’s sports amounts to mere tokenism -
It’s not so much an advantage, it’s more like sports are considered just for men, it’s taken as a given. Women are at a disadvantage simply because they’re not men. There’s a certain amount of tokenism involved in women’s sports, but it’s not as though women’s sports will ever be regarded as being of the same status as men’s sports. Essentially, sports aren’t “geared towards men”, they were created, developed and promoted by men, for men. Women’s sports amount to not much more than tokenism in that context.
No doubt you’re aware of how advertising and marketing works, because even the smallest increase in advertising and coverage recently, had you convinced that you couldn’t move for the amount women’s sports on tv 😳
0 -
If a sport was “created” by men, and promoted by men etc, but women can openly play in the very same sport but with other biological females under the same rules etc, how are the women disadvantaged other than the physiology l differences. Can you actually give an example of this, because I can’t see or think of one.
One reason might be, and you’ll love this, but male participated sports are faster (like soccer, running, track and field, boxing, MMA, etc) more explosive (like boxing for example, huge KOs and so on), and these physiological differences play to entertainment people get from that sport or game. So if an audience is more entertained by that, so be it.
How are these more “considered” for males over females. Physically, both can do the same sports with the same rules, but the outcome is different because of biology.
2 -
From the Knoxsports article - 'Approximately 40 percent of sport and physical activity participants are women, but only 6 to 8 percent of total media sports coverage is devoted to their athletics, according to WomensSportsFoundation.com'.
'Physical Activity' doesn't equal sport.
No-one is going to report on or pay to watch someone going for a walk or doing a few lenghts of the pool.
2 -
You're hilarious. A few posts ago you were pretty much saying womens sport is hugely popular with wall to wall coverage. You then admitted you dont even watch sport on tv anyway. Now when facts are shown to you it's not popular you try to twist that for your own agenda.
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
2 -
I suppose you mean apart from sports like chess, which I wouldn’t consider explosive, but exciting both to play and watch, but I get what you mean generally speaking. I’m not sure what your issue is with my use of the word ‘created’, Does ‘organised’ work better for you?
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-sports-1992447
Women get the same enjoyment from participating in sports that men do btw, but it’s exactly as you suggest - men’s sports are more entertaining for people, not just because of their physiology, but because of the whole idea of men having the opportunity and being encouraged to demonstrate their virility - who’s the fastest, the strongest, the most explosive, etc, qualities which aren’t associated with girls and women. Girls and women are expected to be domestic and maternal and all the rest of it, they’re neither expected, nor encouraged, to get out on the field and get broken up. It’s an ugly spectacle which is generally going to be off-putting. No such qualms or queasiness about men and boys 😂
That’s why women’s sports are disadvantaged Frank, whereas for men’s sports, that’s kinda the norm, it’s expected of boys and men, it’s why men in sports are celebrated for being able to do what they do, and at the levels they do it. There’s all sorts of other ideas are wrapped up in the whole culture of sports which, is at it’s core physical exercise and education, which is of benefit to everyone. The overweight, beer swilling audiences are comprised mostly of men and there’s a whole gambling industry has profited off the idea of betting on outcomes in sports. There’s also opportunities for men to foster relationships with other men for sports and business opportunities. It was always going to be difficult for women to emulate what wasn’t created with them in mind in the first place.
The outcome isn’t just different because of biology Frank, it’s different because of how society regards differently men and boys participation in sports, and women and girls participation in sports in the first place. I’m pretty sure Sky Sports and Ladbrokes weren’t around in Ancient Times, or other corporate entities which sell sports apparel and equipment and so on, such as Nike, Addidas, Mizuno, ehhh… Supermacs 😁 You get the idea I’m sure - corporate sponsorship, advertising and marketing in sports is a multi-faceted, multi-billion dollar business of it’s own. Women’s sports don’t get promoted, so women’s sports don’t get sponsored, well, they struggle for sponsorship and funding and all the rest of it, because sponsorship is a form of advertising, and if there’s no audience, potential sponsors generally aren’t interested, because nobody sees their brand on the jerseys and what have you. That’s why in sponsoring women’s sports, they really have to be interested in promoting women’s sports, and many sponsors aren’t, because guess what sex most corporate leaders are? I’ll give you a hint - it’s not women.
That’s not to suggest btw that there aren’t men interested and involved in women’s sports, there are of course, but they’re involved because they’re genuinely interested in seeing women’s sports thrive and women and girls having opportunities for themselves, not just because of the notion that they have to compete with men or any of the rest of it, but for themselves, and really, sports isn’t just about physiology, it’s about so much more than just physiology. The benefits of being involved in sports are well documented, I hardly need to go over them because I’ve no doubt you’re already aware of them. I’ve benefited enormously from sports, maybe you have too? I like to get people involved in sports so that they benefit from the same opportunities I’ve benefited from in sports.
I take the same approach to employment and education. Similarly as sports, they are domains which have very little dependence on physiology and are more dependent upon being supported and being given opportunities to develop their potential, kinda like what participating and competing in sports does for people. Historically speaking, opportunities in those domains weren’t open to girls and women either with weakly supported arguments absent of any credible evidence that women as a consequence of the physiological differences between the sexes, weren’t meant to do work that men do. They were regarded as being neither mentally nor physically capable. The disadvantage was the perception, nothing to do with their actual abilities or potential to develop and perform in employment, education, or sports.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Again, a whole lot of nothing to try and sound smart. This introduction of “virility” into the convo, what??? It’s 2022, sport is a business (Chess is a game by the way), so people pay for entertainment at the highest level. Males offer a superior physical advantage and in whatever sport it is, that ups the overall entertainment. Look at the contrast between soccer matches when it’s male and female, the female match is like it’s been slowed down at about 40%. That has nothing to do with the opportunity to play the sport, you have a case that some female sports aren’t as marketed as mens (see the difference between audiences that watch then World Cups in soccer for instance).
But is that that due to showing off virility? Or because womens soccer is surprised? Or…and bear with me, because the mens game is faster and higher paced and therefore more entertaining to watch?
Can you answer that without a wall of text?
3 -
Yet again Frank, you give me far too much credit. I wasn’t trying to sound smart or any of the rest of it. I’ve given you an explanation of virility already.
Chess is a game by the way
Controversial 😬
0 -
No I said it all over tv. On the pay per view end it actually shows how popular it is try reading what was posted.
1 -
Yeah, you really see physical exertion during a game of chess. Would the London Chess Conference really say anything different, but still having to refer to chess as a board game.
We clearly aren’t getting anywhere with all of this anyway, you bring in virility, Jordan Peterson and the idea that sports were only created for men so that’s where their advantage is, not their physiology.
To you it seems that simply acknowledging that men posses an advantage physically over women, thus, giving them greater performance in the field of sport and general physics activities is some form of oppression. Must be a hard life.
5 -
If we’re getting nowhere, it’s because you’re still coming out with this sort of nonsense -
To you it seems that simply acknowledging that men posses an advantage physically over women, thus, giving them greater performance in the field of sport and general physics activities is some form of oppression. Must be a hard life.
When I’m saying it’s not as simple as you’re making out at all, and I’ve pointed out why it’s not as simple as you’re making out - that which you’re describing as “walls of text”, as though reading what’s written requires some form of insurmountable physical exertion on your part. I’m not sure you’re in any position to be giving anyone lectures about physical exertion requirements when you’re trying to set the bar so low to suit yourself! 😳
What you’re arguing is a completely separate issue from the issue of people who are transgender having an equal opportunity to participate in sports without discrimination on the grounds of gender or sex. The rules are being changed to ensure they don’t even get to participate at amateur levels in sports, never mind professional levels, before even coming within an asses roar of elite levels in any sports competition, and yet here you are complaining as though their participation would mean the end of sports as we know it 😳
1 -
Advertisement
-
I’m not ignoring the issue at all, this is where you’re simply ignoring what I am saying. Biological males posses physical advantages over biological females, that’s a scientific fact. No one is saying it’s the end of sport, but it drastically impacts what you were pointing out that sport was a male virility test or showcase, so by letting trans athletes into a female sport, it impacts biological females even more by having a biological male compete in that sport.
They can have the opportunity to compete in their biological sport if they please, and if they posses the skills of course.
But for you to bark on about sport being preferred for males in how sports were created etc, and that it was to the benefit of males and detriment of females, but then advocate for biological males to then compete in female sports…is the irony totally lost on you?
9 -
At no point have I ever suggested that sports were organised for men and boys to the detriment of women and girls. In case it hasn’t been clear - women and girls just weren’t even considered. When they campaigned for consideration, it wasn’t just the organisers of sports, but ordinary men and women themselves who not only opposed, but actively discouraged women and girls participating in sports.
Permitting transgender athletes to participate in sports and sports competitions in no way impacts upon women’s sports or men’s sports, they’re still women’s and men’s sports. You keep banging on about scientific facts and saying they can compete according to their sex, when the whole point is that their sex does not correspond to their gender identity. We’re not talking about people who are not transgender, for whom competing in accordance with their sex or gender is not an issue.
You’re applying broad generalisations to a group of people who amount to less than 2% of any given population as though permitting them to have the opportunity to participate in sports in accordance with their gender identity, would have a detrimental impact upon women’s sports, when in reality, there are far greater issues which have a detrimental impact on women’s participation and competition in sports than if the whole population of people who are transgender were to participate and compete in women’s sports.
Their impact on women’s sports wouldn’t even be noticed, because as has been pointed out in this thread numerous times already - apparently nobody watches women’s sports, they’re not popular enough, they’re not good enough or exciting enough or entertaining enough to warrant your attention, even though the people who have been the most prominent campaign advocates for people who are transgender to have an equal opportunity to participate in sports without discrimination on the basis of gender would be by your own standards, female* -
And the person mentioned in the opening post of this thread -
*It isn’t necessary to clarify that the people being referred to are biological, that’s already understood from the fact that we are referring to human beings, and not an artificial life form. Biology isn’t quite there yet -
1 -
Gave me a good laugh Why are they not paying the female athletes the same sponsorship. 🤪
2 -
The impact on womens sport would matter to the biological females who would lose a spot on a team, at an event, in the olympics to a male who decides to identify as a women. That completely undermines womens rights and just retards their struggles within the sporting world even more.
11 -
Whole lot of misleading going on there to make that argument. For starters, it’s a misrepresentation of a policy of non-discrimination. A prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender means that all people who are recognised as women by the organisation have an equal opportunity to qualify. Therefore the idea of a woman being upset at having lost out on a place is no different to having lost out on their place to another woman.
It doesn’t undermine or impact upon women’s rights in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Women still have exactly the same rights as they had before, and now more women have equal rights as other women. It doesn’t mean that anyone is deprived of their rights because other people now have equal rights, and it certainly doesn’t retard women’s struggles within the sporting world any more than they were already retarded.
As I said, even if the whole population of people who are transgender were to be recognised as having the right to compete in women’s sports, that would still only amount to less than 2% of the whole population, whereas it’s estimated that about 40% of women participate in sports already, but coverage of women’s sports amounts to less than 10% of all sports coverage, fuelled by your perception of it’s inferiority in comparison to men’s sports.
You’re in a very poor position to be lecturing anyone about undermining women’s sports when you’re coming out with that sort of nonsense which isn’t based upon any sort of evidence other than your own personal preferences.
Your personal preferences are neither sufficient nor compelling reason to justify discrimination and prejudice against a whole group of people in society, any more than I would point out the same of anyone’s personal preferences, regardless of their gender or sex, in the same manner as all anti-discrimination laws apply to everyone in Irish society on any of the nine grounds, not just sex, gender or sexual orientation -
The Equal Status Acts
• promote equality of opportunity,
• prohibit discrimination on nine specific grounds,
• prohibit harassment on the discriminatory grounds and sexual harassment,
• require reasonable accommodation of people with disabilities and
• allow for positive action.
Grounds
The nine grounds on which discrimination is prohibited are
• gender,
• marital status,
• family status,
• sexual orientation,
• religion,
• age,
• disability,
• race and
• membership of the Traveller community.
There is nothing which would prohibit you from supporting women should you actually choose to, in introducing positive action policies to promote women’s sports, because your current position does nothing other than targeting less than 2% of the population for discrimination, whereas your support of women’s sports, would mean promoting equal opportunities for about 50% of any given population, instead of using existing discrimination against them, to justify discrimination against another group of people.
Nothing in what you’re arguing, does anything to address existing discrimination against women in sports, and it doesn’t encourage women to participate in sports, and if I were to try and be a smartarse, I’d have pointed out that the fact that you overlook the fact that it is by your standards, females, who are campaigning against policies which restrict the rights of people who are transgender in sports, isn’t surprising given your lack of interest in women in sports. Your position does nothing for the actual issues which impact upon women’s participation in sports, some of which are listed in this article -
1 -
That's all irreleevent on multiple grouunds, as you well know.
Firstly, there is a carve out for sports, as you have pointed out youself in this thread before. So to use Age as an example, what would stop a 40 year old man binging a case argueing he is being discriminated against by not being allowed to compete in minor gaelic games, and not be given the opportunity to compete in the all-ireland minor championships. There are multiple sports that have age categories, and yet none of them have been underminded in any way by the existance of age as a protected ground against discrimination in the equal status acts. Why is that?
Secondly this isn't about gender it is about sex. Nobody is being excluded based on their gender identity. People are being ruled eligible or ineligible to compete in specfiic sex-based categories on the basis of their sex, irrespective on their gender identiies.
And if either of those things are incorrect, then its open to any transwoman who feels she is being discriminated against by not being allowed to compete in a female sex category in a sporting event to bring a case against the governing body through the courts on the basis you think you are establishing. You could even put your money where your mouth is and pony up some cash to funs such a case, if you believe so strongly that you are correct. It would be no risk, since the loser would more than likely end up with the final legal bill! Again, why is this not happening?
4 -
First of all, I wouldn’t have brought it up if I thought it were irrelevant on any grounds, so your telling me that I know it’s irrelevant on multiple grounds amounts to nothing more than looking to make out I’m being either deliberately deceitful or dishonest. Meh, if you like.
Secondly, no, I didn’t refer to any “carve out” for sports, because like other terms such as “transgender women” or “transgender men”, it’s just not a term I’d use, and that much about myself I DO know. But to get to the meat as it were, of your example - there is nothing to stop anyone who believes they have been the victim of discrimination based upon the grounds of age, from pursuing a case against a service provider or organisation or sport governing body on that basis. The reason they haven’t been undermined is because exemptions exist in equality legislation for any of the nine grounds, which would distinguish between whether the circumstances in any case constitute a breach of equality legislation. This could only be determined by an objective party, but I wouldn’t imagine it need go all the way to CAS, or through domestic or international Courts to achieve a resolution. Similar exemptions exist for gender discrimination under which discrimination on the basis of sex would equally apply, in spite of any attempt to argue that the discrimination is a necessary means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as the “carve out” you refer to by which I’m assuming you’re referring to the existence of categories in sports based upon sex, to promote women’s participation in sports. That’s the legitimate aim which justifies the discrimination against men.
Now, hold onto your horses for a sec, you’ve not quite got the “ha! I knew it” moment, because, and here’s the part where it sticks in my craw to use terminology I wouldn’t normally use, but it’s the terminology used by CEDAW (you’re probably familiar with the organisation based on their acronym, but just in case you’re not - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), who, notwithstanding the whole litany of accusations of discrimination and sexism they face, are fully committed to the idea that “transgender women”, are women. You’ll have to excuse me, that one hurts my brain… and I’m able to get my head around this -
In 2012, an Austrian national, M.W., submitted an individual communication to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), alleging that Denmark had violated the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). At first glance, M.W.’s case appears to be a straightforward domestic-violence and parental-rights dispute.2Earlier, in 2007, M.W. had attempted to file a police report against her abusive husband, S., but Danish authorities believed her husband’s account and arrested M.W. instead. Then, in 2012, after M.W. and S. had separated, S. and an accomplice kidnapped O.W., the young son of M.W. and S. Rather than reunite M.W. with her son, Danish authorities granted S. custody over O.W.
The twist? Instead of asserting that only her rights under CEDAW had been violated, M.W. alleged that O.W.’s rights had been violated too. Denmark argued that this was impossible: “[O]nly women whose rights under the Convention have been violated, and not boys such as O.W., can claim to be victims.”7 But the CEDAW Committee rejected Denmark’s argument, finding that O.W. had victim standing. For the first time in its history, the CEDAW Committee heard allegations of discrimination against a victim who did not identify as a woman.
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/not-hers-alone
The upshot is basically that CEDAW doesn’t make any distinction between women on the basis of either gender or sex. To be honest, I don’t care to attempt to unravel feminist logic and rhetoric. I’m familiar with it, but I don’t regard it as particularly useful to humanity.
The reason it’s not happening, is because precisely as you point out - the loser would more than likely end up with the final legal bill, and if my son’s recent interest in horse-related sports* doesn’t break me, the cost of a prolonged legal battle most certainly would 😂
Even if legal representation were provided by FLAC, as it was in Lydia Foy’s case against the Irish State, it still wouldn’t just be the ancillary costs would bother me all that much, but the enormous toll I know from experience that a protracted legal battle takes on a person’s mental, physical and emotional health would be prohibitive to anyone considering pursuing a case, so much so that it is enough to put even the most determined individuals off the idea.
Neither of those would be an issue for me personally, but I can understand why they might present as issues for someone who isn’t me. Some people call that empathy, I call it reason based upon rational consideration of all the factors involved which may influence any outcome. Whether that outcome is positive or negative is insufficient justification to proceed IMO, but other people who are not me will make assessments based upon their own experiences and capacity to form an opinion. That might explain why it appears nobody has pursued a case.
Another explanation might be that since Lydia Foy winning their case against the Irish State, and Louise Hannon winning their case against their employer, has meant that organisations and employers may be unwilling to risk discriminating against people who are transgender on the basis of their sex or gender. Another plausible explanation is that people just aren’t really interested in discriminating against people who are transgender. Another plausible explanation could be that there just aren’t that many people who are transgender to discriminate against. They’re probably not all in hiding, afraid to come out for fear of being subject to prejudice and discrimination. Of all those explanations, the idea that people who are transgender receive support from their families, friends, co-workers and people who know them in their daily lives, seems the most likely explanation as to why it appears they aren’t pursuing legal actions for being the victim of unlawful discrimination.
*The reason I refer to “horse-related sports” is because I have no idea what he actually does during these horse-related sports activities and events, nor do I have any interest in finding out as horses scare the living Jesus out of me, can’t bear to be anywhere near them, and because I know it’s MY issue, I avoid any circumstances where I’m likely to be around them. But my son has always been aware, and there has never been any doubt in his mind, that I’ve got his back.
1 -
Again, you’re lumping in a biological male, with physical advantages to their body (bone mass, lung capacity, heart size, muscle mass, limb length, tendon strength) who IDs as a woman, so therefore they are just automatically able to compete with biological females. Just ignore the advantages they have shall we? Yeah that doesn’t matter.
Transwomen would enjoy very nice advantages in their desired sport, this thread is originally about a swimmer who did exactly that with the advantages I’ve laid out above, but to you, because they ID as a woman then it is fair game, has to be inclusive or, heaven forbid, it’s some sort of discrimination on women, when it’s clearly not.
The grounds for discrimination clearly need an amendment, seeing as there are dozens of genders at this stage. There are only 2 sexes, with the occasional outlier that is extremely rare.
How someone can think it’s right for a biological male to compete with biological females and think it’s fair when physiology is such a factor is just beyond me. I hesitate to call it “woke” but it is something, virtue signalling gone wrong perhaps? Either way, there are more people who see it as it is, hit one blockers are only a patch work solution which doesn’t cover the advantages I’ve listed.
One could argue that discrimination against females is already taking place by letting a biological males compete against them in a sport. It takes away a place on a team or in a position, see Laurel Hubbard, who competed as a male and then just 10 years ago transitioned and competed in the female category at the Olympics. That’s a spot taken away from a biological female, and a spot at the olympics doesn’t come often.
3 -
This stuff is getting funnier and funnier it has to be said.
0 -
Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,680 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8089
One one level, it’s hysterical. The deeper issue with this one is that it’s allowed by law, and parents are powerless. Everyone knows it’s wrong, most just maintain their silence out of fear of being labelled. Parents, aunts, uncles, etc need to band together and make their voices heard loud and clear.
Coming to work dressed in short-shorts and a ridiculously big set of fake breasts and figure-hugging top so tight you can see the nipples is unacceptable, and does enormous damage to the trans community. Pity it’s not condemned on all sides of the gender critical debate.
6 -
Advertisement
-
I'm (probably naively) hoping that the above is a protest by the teacher to illustrate to a worldwide audience just how far down this unseemly rabbit hole we've gone.
5 -
British Rowing doubles down on the World Rowing trans policy enabling males with a testosterone level of less than 5nmol/l compete in female categories.
5nmol/l is double the typically highest amount found in women, and would be four to five times the average.
0 -
Their policy doesn't include any elite rowers - they've simply said that the World Rowing eligibility requirements are what apply.
Principle 5 is the one I have the most problem with. For under 16s, there is no medical evidence required, just that the expert panel has to be satisfied that the child has not started puberty.
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 18010
Their statement is a mess.
"We recognise that significant advantages in size, strength and power enjoyed (on average) by individuals identified male at birth, over individuals identified female at birth from puberty onwards, due in large part to much higher levels of androgenic hormones, can impact success in rowing. However, we also recognise there are a number of additional variables that lend themselves to a competitor’s success which are not restricted to hormone levels alone: technical ability, athleticism, fitness, knowledge and the experience and confidence to apply these areas. In addition, the impact of any advantages, perceived or otherwise, may vary depending on the discipline of rowing an individual is involved in, such as indoor rowing, or individual events over crew events. However, without sufficient studies to measure any potential advantage provided to a trans or non-binary person in any of these sport-specific scenarios it means that determining the eligibility criteria for the women’s category in competition is very difficult."
It's amazing really.
6 -
Ok. I've read that 3 times and it's late.
Are they saying it's hard to determine a woman is a woman for a women's category? And because tests are unproven or whatever, if someone identifies as trans woman or non binary and enters the woman's category, that because they identify as a (trans) woman or non binary it's ok go ahead and enter women's category? Or something?
1 -
I think they're saying "we'll disregard size, strength and power, and because we can't measure any potential advantage a trans person may have in other areas we can't say who may be eligible"
...or something
0 -
researchers assessed heart-lung capacity and strength in 15 transgender women, 13 men, and 14 women. All the volunteers were in their mid-thirties and took part in similar levels of physical activity. The transgender women had been on hormone therapy for an average of 14 years, which they had started when they were 17, on average.
VO2 peak in transgender women was around 2,606, in women it was 2,167. Men scored 3,358. Transgender women achieved around 35kg grip strength - which is a proxy for general muscle condition and overall strength - women managed 29kg on average.
Alun Williams, Professor of Sport and Exercise Genomics, at Manchester Metropolitan University, said: “This new evidence doesn’t support the eligibility of transwomen for the female categories of most sports.” But he warned that the research had not been carried out on athletes. “Studies of well-trained athletes before and during their treatment, using tests that are more accurate and more relevant to competitive sport, are required to better inform sport eligibility policies,”
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/09/01/bjsports-2021-105400
3 -
There's the catcher, it's not about John, Jane or Jahyne Doe, it's about athletes in peak physical condition. The elite are few and far between, and it's on that level it needs to be addressed. Once the elite level picks a side, the lower levels will trickle down.
1 -
The rowing policy makes no sense at all and that "principle 5" completely bonkers. I rowed for a few years in college, and it's true that the sport is a lot more technical than people might think, but what makes the difference at the top level is biology - strength, lung capacity and length of arms and legs.
Doubly galling is the fact that these rules are being imposed, in the main, by men. British Rowing has a male majority on its board: both its chairman and its chief executive are male, together with its athlete director and the head of its sporting committee. Why on earth should they be at liberty to enforce changes that deny women equal competitive opportunities on the basis of their sex?
2 -
Advertisement
-
No it isn't. The issue of fairness in sports should apply at all levels, not just elite level.
0
