Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - optimussum (08/29/2013) [-]
Feminism =/= Equalism
User avatar #307 to #1 - waterbottlemanboy (08/30/2013) [-]
**** that **** , the kid just wanted to play on a team for a sport that he loved. Not his fault the others weren't as good.
User avatar #158 to #1 - randomlunchbox (08/30/2013) [-]
"Praised for proving that girls can hang with boys in a man's sport"

That's because the boys haven't hit puberty yet. up to that point kids are mostly equal physically.
#57 to #1 - kingpongthedon (08/29/2013) [-]
Look, I see what you're saying there's a huge difference between men and women physiologically. Remember a few months ago when the tranny tried to join the women's UFC league? People tried to turn it into a LGBT-rights thing and say s/he was being oppressed, but in reality s/he has been producing testosterone and all other types of naturally occurring performance enhancing drugs for her entire life. S/he has a distinct biological advantage her opponents do not have. It's the exact same thing here.

Look at the NBA vs the WNBA. Actually, don't because the WNBA is unwatchable. It's not that the WNBA players haven't put in as much effort as their male counterparts, they just lack a Y-chromosome and all the physical advantages that come with it. Don't get me wrong, any WNBA benchwarmer would still run the court on me, but put Brittney Griner against 'Melo and I can guarantee 'Melo wins every time.

It's not an equal rights argument, it's about sportsmanship and fairness. A man of the same skill level as a woman playing the same sport will have a huge biological advantage in most sports. Competition is ideally a measure of which player has put the most effort into their sport, but when you have a player that is naturally dominant, it takes that away that most important element of the game.
User avatar #128 to #57 - uzbekistan (08/30/2013) [-]
If a game was supposed to be fair then everyone would have to put players on the team that had near the same height, weight etc... Just because someone is naturally stronger doesn't mean they should be banned for winning. This girl was naturally better then the guys on her team but did she get banned? No. But how come if the guy was naturally stronger he get's banned for it? I agree with the UFC thing. He was transgendered and he/she shouldn't be able to join the weaker league because he/she wants But the boys case was that it states in the picture is that it's rare to find any boys field hockey teams so he was essentially forced to play on a girls team because he wanted to do the sport he loved. In my opinion I don't think anyone of them should receive national fame for being better then the opposite gender. I am not saying you are wrong I am just stating my opinion
#163 to #128 - kingpongthedon (08/30/2013) [-]
Most sports end up doing just that. Some more directly, like wrestling, boxing and MMA, and others do so more indirectly. A 5'3" point guard just isn't going to be competitive with the 6'6" freaks on the court, so everyone ends up being more or less in the same 6'+ class of giants. There are of course some sports where this isn't necessarily the case, soccer, most notably, but there is less advantage in being a giant in these. But on the whole, most sports self-regulate what the "size" of the player will be.

That being said, it sucks for the dude, but it also sucks for everybody else out there on the field. That's hundreds of people who are going to feel cheated each time he wins. It's not that he shouldn't play because he has an advantage, it's that it puts everybody else he plays at a distinct disadvantage. Realistically, there's a lot of people who are going to be "cheated" (not the best word, but you get what I mean) of a win because of his playing. Plus, the girls on his team always have to wonder how much of the work their actually doing on the team. It's not just the boy that's affected, but everyone he plays with and against.
#23 to #1 - knowstoomuch (08/29/2013) [-]
Statistically, Men perform better athletically than women. I learned this in AP statistics when we looked at the medal winners for the events that had divided men and women (Cross country running, 100m dash, the non-arbitrarily judged events.)

The bronze medalist for the male section would more often than not have a better score than the gold medalist of the same female section.

Interestingly, the female gold medalist would have a higher Zscore than the male gold medalist, meaning the female who won would win by many more points over her competitors than the male gold medalist who would usually just barely win.

What I'm saying is there is a good reason men and women are divided in sports, so both these little ***** are faggots.
#346 to #23 - anon (08/30/2013) [-]
Right, because, statistically, statistics always end an ethics and morality discussion
User avatar #221 to #23 - stevewillrule (08/30/2013) [-]
you're forgetting to take age into account. At the age the boy appears to be, girls even one or two years older than him are way more ahead developmentally. That is true at adulthood, but when you are a prepubescent I would make the argument that at the same age, girls are more athletic.
User avatar #150 to #23 - rhiaanor ONLINE (08/30/2013) [-]
the only reason men perform better statistically speaking is definitely because they have been thrown to the dirt for being athletic for the longest time, and they never have to prepare to go against men, just other women. That Is what I believe, and what makes sense to me anyways.
#241 to #150 - knowstoomuch (08/30/2013) [-]
What? No. These are Olympic medalists I'm talking about. They usually start training at the age of three.
#194 to #150 - gahlskaag (08/30/2013) [-]
And because, due to their genetics, will almost always be physically stronger then women.
#27 to #23 - learned (08/29/2013) [-]
Appearantly you've learned too much, thus you know too much.
#50 to #27 - somekindofname (08/29/2013) [-]
Plato once said that:
"I'm deemed the smartest, because I among all people realize that I know nothing," or ssomething like that.
User avatar #230 to #50 - partnerintroll (08/30/2013) [-]
thats socrates
#245 to #230 - knowstoomuch (08/30/2013) [-]
Plato saying what Socrates may have said. Socrates never wrote nothing.
User avatar #246 to #245 - partnerintroll (08/30/2013) [-]
you're absolutely correct, in being technical.
User avatar #14 to #1 - chaosnazo (08/29/2013) [-]
A better would be humanism
 Friends (0)