No more men’s and women’s league, no more “gender eligibility” requirements, a common dresscode, same standards and rules for all.

Edit: since it looks like people missing the word let: the suggestion isn’t to force desegregation. It’s to allow it or even make it the default. Someone else made a good suggestion: segregate by attributes specific to the sport. In boxing it’s weight class, in basketball it could be height, in biking it could even be doped and non doped. Sex and gender need not be the very first thing to segregate by.

  • atro_city@fedia.ioOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not all men. You think you can compete against any woman out there and win? Also, do you think every sport is about strength?

    • overcast5348@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      do you think every sport is about strength?

      A lot has been written about why chess has separate tournaments for men and women despite physical strength not being a consideration for the game. Presumably, similar logic holds true for other non-physical-strength based games. I’d recommend you to look it up yourself, but the TL;DR (with some potential inaccuracies since it’s been some time since I read it all) is as follows.

      Historically women weren’t even allowed to participate in chess tournaments because men considered them to be inferior and incapable of thinking as well as a man could. It was considered “ungentlemanly” to defeat a woman who “obviously” couldn’t keep up with men. This led to a cycle of women not even learning the game because why bother, eh?

      Now the thing about games like chess is that you can definitely learn it at any age and master it. BUT - doing so at a very young age tends to give people a huge edge over someone who started later (all else being equal - memory, effort etc etc). So, the same person starting at age 4 who’d probably be level 9000 Goku by the time they are 23 might never get to that level if they only start at age 35.

      So, when women were allowed to participate in chess tournaments, there were very few of them who had started at the right age and could hold their own. This led to a need for a women’s tournament to grow the sport.

      How does that grow the sport? A little girl watching a woman on tv after winning a tournament might get inspired to pick it up. The girl might be able to point at the other women and tell her parents that she deserves to play chess too and that it’s not just for boys.

      These gendered leagues also give a “safe space” for women to participate in communities where people of different genders interacting is frowned upon. Etc etc etc.

      Please do fact check me by looking up things on your own though – it has been years since I went down this rabbit hole.

      • atro_city@fedia.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Thank you for the response!

        I definitely agree that role models are important and that starting early is the key in chess. I can’t remember the names, but it was tested by a researcher on his own daughters: he trained them in chess very early on they all became grand masters. In fact, the list of known chess grandmasters has 42 women on it.

        Women are mentally capable of playing chess at the highest level if given the opportunity to do so.

        So yes, giving them a space to compete against each other can serve as a “safe” space, it doesn’t mean that it should be the only place they compete, nor that they are incapable of holding their own against other genders.

        The question isn’t either “should all sports force no segratation”, but “should all sports let everybody compete together”.

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even in “sports” like chess, darts and pool virtually every single world class player is a male. It’s not just about strenght.