So in other words, you are not in favor of male only league/teams, only merit based leagues/teams, but you are in favor of female only league's/teams?
All are created equal, some are just more equal than others?
Given that this has moved into the legal realm then it can't be that subjective. They are either allowed or they aren't. If they aren't, however, than how can that be defended based on the fact that women can choose to play in either group? Personally I think the judge made a very improper decision when you look at the grand scheme of things.
Edit: Don't mean to hammer you on this, obviously some other poster's have echoed the same sentiments.
I don't disagree with any of that. However, once you open the door you have to let it swing both ways. Allowing woman to play on the mens team, but not allowing men to play on the woman's isn't really equal rights. Isn't that what this whole thing is about, equal rights?
Ideally, it would be nice if there were two "B" teams, one just for men, one just for women, and one "A" team which was purely merit based and non gendered (though even then, it would result in men getting essentially two teams, and women only one). But most schools simply don't have the funding to do that with their sports teams, especially not for all of them. So we have to stick with what is possible and try to find the best solution from those options, and seemingly for most sports what is possible is for most schools to have two teams, one men's (which usually gets more funding) and one women's. If you only have two strictly merit based teams, you're going eliminate most women from being able to play. That's unfortunately the most likely scenario. But I do think in everything, the highest levels possible should be strictly merit based.
When you refuse to let a girl join a men's team, even if she is good enough to make the team were she male, you have no other grounds than that she's a girl. It's a rare event that a girl is good enough to make the team, so it has little overall effect on the league and men still have their arena of competition. On the flipside, most men who play competitively would be good enough to make the girls team. At a small school where there aren't enough guys interested in playing to make up much more than one team, it wouldn't be a problem, but at bigger schools where there enough men who play competitively to form two full teams, it could potentially run the majority of girls off of a team. Then these mostly men are going around playing against either teams that are mostly women who they will likely defeat handily, or against other teams of mostly men. Either way, you are taking away women's arena of play.
Here's a question for you guys. If a handicapped person was able to and chose to compete in a non-handicapped tournament, would you start arguing that non-handicapped people should be allowed in the special Olympics? If a poor person manages to become wealthy and join a country club, would you suggest that means the wealthy people should now be eligible for welfare? Or to stick with hockey, if Crosby can play in the NHL though he is juniors eligible, how come 30 year olds who aren't good enough for the NHL play in the Q? Certain things are set up specifically for people with disadvantages so that they can compete.
I don't think it's wrong of me to say that women are disadvantaged in comparison to men when it comes to most athletics, and especially in sports like hockey where things like size and muscle mass provide disctinct and significant advantages. Just because a few people are able to overcome these disadvantages does not mean that these things should suddenly be distributed equally to everyone, as the majority of cases remain at a disadvantage. But that doesn't mean we should prevent the disadvantaged from attempting to accomplish all that they can. It IS a one-way street, and it SHOULD be a one way street.
It's less about equal gender rights to me. It's about exclusion and trying to avoid it when it can be avoided. In the case of a couple girls trying out for a men's team that they hopefully will make or not make based on merit (though I see a real chance they make the team based on fear of lawsuit, and that would be messed up) there's no reason/need to exclude. In the case of allowing men into women's leagues, it disrupts the balance of competition. So by not excluding them, you're simply back to excluding women, and to protect that you have to exclude. In the end the fairest way seems to be exclude the men not good enough to make the men's team, and women not good enough to make the women's team.
That's my point. If all the good players leave to play on boys teams, woman's sports become a joke.
