Court Says Boy Cannot Compete On Girls Squad

Originally posted by 7Ayreon
Oh please, it's in our nature, it's in the heterosexual nature for a woman to be aroused by a strong physicaly fit man. As for men, there attracted to woman who take care of there body and look gorgious. Really, a woman who is a body builder, just isn't a turn on, it is sick looking.. Google how they look, ew. So backwards.

Firstly we are sentient, and that overrides nature.

Secondly sexual preference really has nothing to do with it.

I know very few women who want muscly men like that,
most of them want smaller less muscly men, equal or
lesser than themselves.

And men are not just attracted to what our idea of gorgious
(for women) is today.

I mean in some cultures bigger women are considered attractive,
in todays western culture incredibly thin women with large breasts
are considered attractrive.

Personally I fond the super muscly weight lifters of both sexes
to be unattractive, but women with muscles are attractive to me.

[edit on 11/30/2006 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well that does'nt make alot of sense based on what I've
seen witnessed.

That might be because you've seen specific cases and or instances, however in general men are stronger then women. And that's due to the fact that we (again in general) have more muscle mass.

Originally posted by iori_komei
And besides that, wo's to say that trait has'nt or is'nt
evolving out, through either females becoming stronger
or, more likely, males becoming weaker.

Because I can show you scientific studies from the early 1900's-2,000 which show that the results have remained consistent. To change something as fundamental as that you would need to have an environment in which men having more muscle mass is not an advantage. And you would need such an environment to stay constant for hundreds of thousands of years for evolution to do it's thing, you don't evolve over night or even in 100 years.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Yes indeed you are correct.

However, too much muscle is just .. un-attractrive I find. Like seriously, check out the woman and men bodybuilders, it's not good for men cause they get errectile disfunction, they get turned down while in the middle of sex. As for woman, yes it is attractive when they have muscle, but too much like in body builders are just totally overboard.

7A

Originally posted by elevatedone
I'll bet if it was a girl wanting to play football they'd let her.

If he appeals he will win other courts have ruled girls can play on boys teams. Me thinks the judge was a sleep at da bench here is proof. Watch the video at the start on the left side a girls scores the winning shot.

Girl on boys team shoots winning shot

Originally posted by niteboy82
Girls are weaker than boys is an outdated argument.

Not necessarily, and I'll point out a male gymnastic routine that I doubt women would be able to do.

Still rings:

Check out the guns!!

Just because girls being weaker than boys is an outdated argument doesn't make it any less true.

Peace

If the guy is really serious he needs to take this to the supreme court as earlier rulings have would arguably override this state court ruling. This ruling should allow the disbarrment of girls from all male sports.
Jubal 55

As has been stated men are typically stronger than women. Now if a woman has the drive and persistance to achieve the ability to meet men in sport, not only good for her but it HAS to be allowed. Men on the other hand already have an advantage, that isn't fair. Not much "sport" either imo.

Originally posted by niteboy82

Girls are weaker than boys is an outdated argument.

Really?

Since when?

Women have advantages that men do not and men have other advantages that women do not. Thank God.

Women tend to be softer sweeter and smell better! They even taste good...

You never noticed?

Why are grils allowed on 'boys' wrestling teams?

Why don't the schools just make a girl's wrestling team?

Why are grils allowed on 'boys' wrestling teams?

Why don't the schools just make a girl's wrestling team?

Originally posted by niteboy82
Simply create a team? Is it that easy?

So he was wanting to perform in gymnastics, which his school obviously was not able to offer except for the one group that had the commonality to be inclusive of females.

If there was a boys team, or enough boys to make a team, would this have ever been an issue? Doubtful.

To the person that had the "females are at a disadvantage thats why they are allowed" syndrome, let me ask you this:

If a male was to join an all-female team, would the male not be at the same "disadvantage" that you proposed? His "strength" would mean that he would have to "lessen" his abilities to perform, right?

How ridiculous does that logic sound now?

Girls are weaker than boys is an outdated argument.

I am 6"1 and 230 pounds. I played nose tackle in highschool. You cant put a girl on the other side of me and tell me we are equally stacked. I have an advantage. A HUGE one. Doesnt make the woman inferior....just different...which, the last time I looked, we are.

Its not "outdated". Its true.

Oh come on man this type of over poliltical correctness is garbage. he is a boy, not a girl. Putting him on the same team is RIDICULOUS. this is not discrimination or anything, this is common sense.

You don't let a boy, on a team made for GIRLS. Why can't he join the boys gymnastics team?

finally..the courts made 1 rational decision.

i dunno why so many of u are like "oh he should play!". seriously, men and women can't play on the same sports teams...it's not fair. you will never see a woman in the NFL with a bunch of men...it is physically dangerous. Even if the woman was stacked like a female wrestler...the men are still bigger and stronger than she is, and she stands a chance to get hurt. Furthermore, you don't want a locker room with mixed sexes!

I understand we need to give everyone a chance...but when it comes to sports, boys play with boys..and girls play with girls.

period.

I'm sure that this kid did not even want to play on the girl’s team. Like most lawsuits of this type it is not about winning the case. It is about attempting to highlight the cause on a national level to embarrass the school a little bit and get them to realize they need to start a male team - which they probably need.

And for those of you who didn't read the entire article: Bukowski (the kid who filed the lawsuit) has already guaduated and was hired by the same school as an assistant coach for the girls' gymnastics team.



[edit on 1-12-2006 by zerotime]

Originally posted by spliff4020


I am 6"1 and 230 pounds. I played nose tackle in highschool. You cant put a girl on the other side of me and tell me we are equally stacked. I have an advantage. A HUGE one. Doesnt make the woman inferior....just different...which, the last time I looked, we are.

Its not "outdated". Its true.

This logic is flawed. I see the point WestPoint was trying to make but I think it was lost in the debate...
If you took a girl that was 6"1 and 230 pounds that had all of the training and conditioning that you had she would have a very good chance of taking you. On that same line of thinking, there are MANY men that are shorter and smaller than you that couldn't take you simply due to physics. I believe West Points point (correct me if I am wrong) is that on average men are bigger & stronger than women. That doesn't equate to ALL men are bigger and stronger than ALL women, rather its just the norm. Kind of like in wrestling when you have different weight classes - most are all men competing against one another, but are in different classes to make the competition more fair. There are MANY women in the world that could open a can of whup ass on MANY men. Part of the American bias on women is the fact that women traditionally were steered toward non physical activities at a young age (i.e. playing with dolls, playing dress up, etc) while boys are generally steered toward physically intesive activities such as sports. Now I am not trying to be sterotypical here, rather pointing out the very things that create the stereotype in the first place. If guys and girls were raised equally from the get go, I believe within a generation or two you would start to see many similarities between them in areas of strength. On the flip side, you cannot ignore biological differences between men and women. Women are genetically and physically different for one big reason - they birth childeren. They are designed differently. This isn't saying they are inferior to men in any way, but on average tend to have less bone and muscle mass. Now I have seen some body building women that would probably whup me with one arm tied behind their backs and I am 6'6" 240!!

If there isn't a men's/boy's gymnastics team then I thought he should be allowed to join the girl's/women's team. I don't see a problem with that, even if his being male somehow gives him an advantage, which I think is total BS.

I would love to read the argument regarding the "advantage" this young man would have over his female counterparts. I don't think women need to be as strong as men in gymnastics because women tend to be lighter so not as much strength is needed to perform the tumbling, vaulting, etc. that their probably larger male counterparts would require.

We had a gymnastics program at the junior high in Texas when I grew up in the '70's. One of our strongest and best receivers from the football team was on it. He later went on to college on a dual sport scholarship in both football and gymnastics. The whole idea of separate sex teams for smaller individual sports like tennis, golf and gymnastics is ridiculous especially at the junior high level. My high school had 750 students graduate my senior year and only 6 of them(male and female) were gymnasts. The school district he's in should be glad that at least one male teenager's fingers could be pried from the PS, Gameboy or Xbox controls. If your kid is obese and he's got a computer/video game player in his room, it's your fault he's obese.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I have an idea.

Get rid of segregated teams, and have girls and boys
on the same team.

It is quite obvious that this is what the 'system desires' after all the recent moves it has been making.

But I have a question: why the rush now to do this after thousands of years of history which prevented it?

Furthermore, what logic makes this desirable for everyone to engage in?

Well I say since in gymnastics you are not competing against another athletes streangth, but their skill and form-which they are being judged on...he should be allowed to be onthe all girls team. He's just competing on a floor mat tumbling routine or a unevenbars coragraphy, not muscular weight lifting.

And men are on average 20% stronger than women(muscle mass). Sexual dimorphism all animals have it in one way or another. We also have alot more testosterone, which means we can produce more muscle. So a girl standing 6-1 and weighing 230(granted it's muscle and not fat) would be a chick on steroids or a professional body builder.

The real question is what hurts more. A slap from a man or one from a woman? Now thats a close call.

Originally posted by iori_komei
In other words, if a male and female the same age do the same
training for something for the same amount of time, they will be
equal and strength and ability in it.

Have you ever seen a woman run the 100m under 10 seconds before??? At their peak, men are always physically stronger than women. That's the facts.

girls are not equal to boys when it comes to sports
i run track and field and cross country and will give some examples of why they are not equal here:
WORLD RECORDS
MEN
100 9.77
200 19.32
400 43.18
800 1:41.11
1500 3:26.00
Mile 3:43.13
3000 7:20.67
5000 12:37.35
10,000 26:17.53
WOMEN
100 10.49
200 21.34
400 47.60
800 1:53.28
1500 3:50.46
Mile 4:12.56
3000 8:06.11
5000 14:24.53
10,000 29:31.78

now, what were to happen if they all ran together, men running against women. There would be no competition whatsoever, elite male milers routinely run the last 800 meters of a race faster than the womens 800 record, and the mens 5k (3.1miles) is run a good ten seconds per mile faster than the womens mile world record, and the mens half-marathon world record was run faster the pace for the womens 10k world record
given, also, that male runners run closer to the world recrods than the women do

all this is due to many differences including:
the simple fact that males and females are different
males can handle and maintain harder, more intense training then women can in higher volumes (proven fact, due to physiological differences which mean an almost necessary difference in training, if the women did the same training as the men they would burn out, get injured, etc.)

now, i know that running is different than most sports, but the differences in performance and training directly reflect the differences between men and women, mostly due to physiological differences
men are more efficient runners than women, mostly due to women having wider hips resulting in a different movement of the legs
women, however, have a few advantages over men in running, like women have lower bodyweight and a higher body fat percentage, which depending on how you look at it, is a good thing
if you ever watch any distance races, watch how the women move their arms and how the men do. The women moves their arms much more and do not show as much fatigue in this as men do. If i tried to pump my arms like some of these women do, i would die before the race was half over.

all in all, the physiological differences between men and women such as strength and size/shape of the hips result in vast differences in performance and training
now, this may not be the same for all sports but the difference is apparent here

however, this should not be a political question, this should be a scientific question (in my opinion)

sorry for the long post







[edit on 1-12-2006 by lurkinginthedark]