Gender segregation is usually done to encourage less dominant groups in sports. Like chess, for instance (good comparison to video games).
Women have higher avg IQ than men. Sex based physiological differences have zero impact. Women are in theory just as good as men at chess.
In practice, women do not perform well at chess compared to men in high level competitive play. Why? Fewer women play chess because of sociological/cultural reasons, therefore by the law of large numbers we don’t yet have a Magnussy Carlsen.
The solution? Create womens leagues where they can compete against other women in the game and see more success. If womens chess leagues continue to gain traction, inspire more women to play chess, increase the size of the talent pool, then eventually womens leagues won’t be necessary - the talent pools between genders will homogenize.
Another example is football (soccer), but between countries. American atheletes have dominated a great many sports at various times - basketball, american football, track and field, swimming, tennis. Why has the USA never won the world cup? Relatively few Americans play football compared to other countries, so the talent pool is smaller and the USA doesn’t have major global talents like other countries do. The answer? Build the domestic competitive infrastructure needed to produce talent. If the US does this, eventually it will not suck at football because the talent pool will be larger and it will have global talents.
Nitpicking but it’s worth mentioning the US women’s soccer team was insanely dominant for most of 2010 -> 2020, Rapinoe, Morgan and gang inspired tons of young girls to get into football, while the men’s never achieved anything
That’s a really good point - especially because soccer in the US is more popular among girls. Less so now, but traditionally more women played soccer in highschool/college than men - who were more drawn to basketball/baseball/football. I was just talking about mens soccer, but womens is a great example.
If you have to justify it based on sociological and cultural reasons, that’s not a good example cause at that point one could use the same arguments to justify racial segregation.
That’s a crazy comparison to make. Segregation excludes people while women’s sports includes people. Many “men’s” leagues are actually just open. The only reason women don’t join is due to sociological and cultural reasons. As women integrate more into the culture, women’s leagues are less and less needed since the women who want to compete will prefer the open league. It’s an inclusive force.
Frankly, if you start by trying to include women and end up segregating based on race, I question whether you were ever working in good faith.
Tbf I don’t think there should be mens leagues. Just an open league. So i don’t entirely disagree. But regardless that is supposed to be the point of having separate leagues.
The solution? Create womens leagues where they can compete against other women in the game and see more success.
Sorry, in terms of solving the root cause of the problem this suggestion doesn’t make sense to me.
The solution is to decrease people from making judgements based on in most cases* meaningless differences like gender or skin colour, e.g., to not think “You got beat up by a girl? How pathetic!” anymore. Basically prevent any prejudiced, juvenile, or toxic male thought patterns which scares people from ever trying something. I hate that running competition results are still segregated by gender. I don’t give a rats ass what the gender or country of origin of the person was who beat me, I simply care about the thrill of competing and the festive yet athletic mindset that comes with it.
An analogy, I think it was a stupid decision to make emoji distinctions by skin colour. Why? It exactly undermines the entire purpose of having done so for inclusivity by putting even more emphasis on differences in skin colour. Yellow was perfect because nobody is yellow so it simultaneously represents everyone an no one, except for sick people who are jaundiced.
* Exceptions: pregnancy, sickle cell disease, et cetera.
An analogy, I think it was a stupid decision to make emoji distinctions by skin colour. Why? It exactly undermines the entire purpose of having done so for inclusivity by putting even more emphasis on differences in skin colour. Yellow was perfect because nobody is yellow so it simultaneously represents everyone an no one, except for sick people who are jaundiced.
Well goddamn, the history and backlash behind 🙂 totally came out of left field. I knew I should’ve used black and white Unicode emoticons instead; ☺ ☻ *. However, I stick to my point though, and at 18:39 the interviewee pretty much agrees.
Gender segregation is usually done to encourage less dominant groups in sports. Like chess, for instance (good comparison to video games).
Women have higher avg IQ than men. Sex based physiological differences have zero impact. Women are in theory just as good as men at chess.
In practice, women do not perform well at chess compared to men in high level competitive play. Why? Fewer women play chess because of sociological/cultural reasons, therefore by the law of large numbers we don’t yet have a Magnussy Carlsen.
The solution? Create womens leagues where they can compete against other women in the game and see more success. If womens chess leagues continue to gain traction, inspire more women to play chess, increase the size of the talent pool, then eventually womens leagues won’t be necessary - the talent pools between genders will homogenize.
Another example is football (soccer), but between countries. American atheletes have dominated a great many sports at various times - basketball, american football, track and field, swimming, tennis. Why has the USA never won the world cup? Relatively few Americans play football compared to other countries, so the talent pool is smaller and the USA doesn’t have major global talents like other countries do. The answer? Build the domestic competitive infrastructure needed to produce talent. If the US does this, eventually it will not suck at football because the talent pool will be larger and it will have global talents.
Nitpicking but it’s worth mentioning the US women’s soccer team was insanely dominant for most of 2010 -> 2020, Rapinoe, Morgan and gang inspired tons of young girls to get into football, while the men’s never achieved anything
That’s a really good point - especially because soccer in the US is more popular among girls. Less so now, but traditionally more women played soccer in highschool/college than men - who were more drawn to basketball/baseball/football. I was just talking about mens soccer, but womens is a great example.
If you have to justify it based on sociological and cultural reasons, that’s not a good example cause at that point one could use the same arguments to justify racial segregation.
That’s a crazy comparison to make. Segregation excludes people while women’s sports includes people. Many “men’s” leagues are actually just open. The only reason women don’t join is due to sociological and cultural reasons. As women integrate more into the culture, women’s leagues are less and less needed since the women who want to compete will prefer the open league. It’s an inclusive force.
Frankly, if you start by trying to include women and end up segregating based on race, I question whether you were ever working in good faith.
Tbf I don’t think there should be mens leagues. Just an open league. So i don’t entirely disagree. But regardless that is supposed to be the point of having separate leagues.
Sorry, in terms of solving the root cause of the problem this suggestion doesn’t make sense to me.
The solution is to decrease people from making judgements based on in most cases* meaningless differences like gender or skin colour, e.g., to not think “You got beat up by a girl? How pathetic!” anymore. Basically prevent any prejudiced, juvenile, or toxic male thought patterns which scares people from ever trying something. I hate that running competition results are still segregated by gender. I don’t give a rats ass what the gender or country of origin of the person was who beat me, I simply care about the thrill of competing and the festive yet athletic mindset that comes with it.
An analogy, I think it was a stupid decision to make emoji distinctions by skin colour. Why? It exactly undermines the entire purpose of having done so for inclusivity by putting even more emphasis on differences in skin colour. Yellow was perfect because nobody is yellow so it simultaneously represents everyone an no one, except for sick people who are jaundiced.
* Exceptions: pregnancy, sickle cell disease, et cetera.
Why Are Emoji Yellow? by Lily Alexandre 33 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vio9Yr0x4YY
Well goddamn, the history and backlash behind 🙂 totally came out of left field. I knew I should’ve used black and white Unicode emoticons instead; ☺ ☻ *. However, I stick to my point though, and at 18:39 the interviewee pretty much agrees.
* In case one of these shows as an emoji, the intention is to render these as non-emoji black and white Unicode glyphs:
.