Oh, come on.

A 6th grade girls team from Kentucky was set to go for the year-end championship tournament, but was told they were banned due to fears boys teams might ‘retaliate’ if they lost to the girls team.

      • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
        59·
        9 months ago

        Here’s the quotes:

        SWOB President Tom Sunderman expressed concern in a statement:

        “Doing this for 28 years, what we have worried about is a boys team losing to a girls team (especially in the year end tourney), they may get frustrated and retaliate against a girl.” "Then we have liability issues.” Prez, a social media user on X (Formerly Twitter), didn’t buy it.

        “What he meant to say was they can’t have their boys being emasculated by a better girls team… it would be a blow to their developing manhood to get beat by girls.”

        What context am I missing?

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      24·
      9 months ago

      Retaliating against your opponents for beating you in a game isn’t normal, but on Patriarchy it is.

      Patriarchy, not even once.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          You and me both buddy.

          This whole thread is a lowest common denominator extravaganza, I’m actually shocked at the lack of critical thinking. People read a headline and get riled up without asking questions, and if you do, you’re a homophobic racist antihuman piece of shit. What a fucking echo chamber. Was lemmy acquired by Tumblr without telling anyone? Reddit has higher standards than this.

          It’s funny how 12 people downvoted me, and 15 people “genuinely didn’t understand”. So, did you downvote first, then realized that you didn’t even get it? That’s how the right wing thinks and acts.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            2·
            9 months ago

            It’s funny how 12 people downvoted me, and 15 people “genuinely didn’t understand”. So, did you downvote first, then realized that you didn’t even get it?

            Downvotes are for poor quality posts that don’t contribute to the discussion. If people “genuinely didn’t understand” your post they should downvote it, because you did not explain yourself well enough to contribute to the discussion.

    • golli@lemm.ee
      3·
      9 months ago

      Once again, girls are somehow responsible for boys’ inability to behave

      That’s really not what i am getting from this article at all.

      made the call because they believed that 11 to 12-year-old girls and boys competing against each other on the court could pose a liability risk leading to violence, even though the girls team had been winning 7-1 all season without incident.

      they may get frustrated and retaliate against a girl.” "Then we have liability issues.”

      McGraw said the girls were never in any real danger during the games, aside from the occasional side-eye.

      “They got giggles, they got laughs, and people talked about them… you know, the looks.”

      [emphasis added]

      Where “once again” is the boys inability to behave? All i see is adults wanting to dodge POTENTIAL liability.

      Beyond that there is the question about their participation in the league itself. Here there are as i see it two sides:

      • They participated through deception (listing as mail AND apparently fielding a male team in the first game)

      • Or one can be on the side that the system is broken and they should have been allowed to participate in the first place.

      Again something that adults decide. Not sure if we have enough information to judge this properly.

      Not sure why i spend much time on this nonesense, especially since i find this to be a pretty poor article (as is any that just randomly quotes social media users to make its point).