• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    If it’s about who might get hurt, maybe we should divide things up by something other than gender. I know plenty of women who could do a ton of damage with their fists and they aren’t even boxers.

    • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is the correct answer. Divide competitors up by class, skill level, or anything else besides perceived sexual anatomy.

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

      It’s one thing to work within the limits of your physique to become stronger, better, etc. It’s another thing to have a totally different physique that gives you a starting point higher than can be achieved naturally by anyone else.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        So put those women in a higher class. There are plenty of women with “masculine” physiques… or are you going to claim Brittney Griner is also not a woman?

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        So many sports are entirely about the physique you inherited though. Yes there is some technique to swimming and obviously you have to train hard. But these are just prerequisites, not differentiators. If we start saying that winning because of your physique is no victory, then really half of the events become meaningless. To a large extent, the Olympics does measure inherited traits and I think we ought to recognize that that is its point. If you think back all those centuries, it was very obviously the point to prove that your people are genetically superior to their people.