posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:38 PM
Well.... There are a lot of comments in that post which, in reality, are only tangentially related to sports, and are a lot more related to society,
religion and philosophy, in my opinion. But I'm game.
I absolutely DON'T believe boys and men should be allowed to compete on girls' and women's teams, nor in girls' and women's individual sports, and for
exactly the reason you state. It is a playing field which will NEVER be equal, as a matter of biological reality, and the feminists I know--and trust
me, they're both numerous and prominent--agree with me.
I think that's so obvious it requires no discussion. But I also think comparing Liebermann's playing in that men's hoops league, or Wie's playing
men's golf, to a 6'4" h.s. male's playing on a girls' hoops team, is a false parallel. In the former instance, you are talking about athletes who are
biologically outgunned, except in extraordinary circumstances; in the latter instance, you are talking about athletes who can destroy the competition,
take all the fun out of it, etc.
Now, I don't believe girls/women who have no realistic chance should be allowed to compete with the xy gender, and even Wie may fall into that
category because of her driving limitations. But if a woman actually has a chance to compete with the men, I sure don't see that as a reason to
destroy the women's event by allowing much larger, vastly stronger men in there.
On the other hand, huge believer that I am in the Constitution, I stand behind that pr*ck Hootie Johnson and his club members' rights to associate
with whomever they like, and their concomitant right NOT to associate with whomever they DON'T want to associate, in their private club. The freedoms
of association and non-association, in matters not connected to government action, are a core part of the First Amendment, and they don't only apply
to guys I like.
On the subject of TRAINERS, shouldn't the individual TEAM and PLAYERS decide with whom they're comfortable? It's their decision, right? If they're
ok with a female trainer, fine. If not, that's fine, too. As you've suggested, we won't see male trainers in the locker room of Pat Summitt's hoops
teams any time soon, or I'll/we'll be shocked.
As I've said, I don't think ANY camera people or reporters should be allowed in locker rooms until everyone's showered and dressed. Then: (1) All
reporters will have the same professional rights and opportunities; (2) all players will have their dignity respected; and (3) none of this b.s. will
be an issue. I would be FURIOUS if I were an athlete and had a female reporter sticking a mike in front of the naked me, and I'm sure female athletes
would feel the same way in the reverse situation.
I think it is now time to make an admission I will be taunted about for as long as I remain here--and it's ok, guys, as long as it's good-natured
I am a longtime member of N.O.W.--at least 20 years, maybe more. But they were WRONG in wanting to impinge on old Hootie's freedom of association,
and I don't believe for a minute they were only seeking a drop in sponsorship. As a longtime member, and one who's thought up numerous changes to
California sex-offense statutes which have then taken place and gotten more sexual predators locked up and gotten me a real nice plaque from N.O.W.
that hangs in my hallway, I can tell you there are SOME prominent feminists who'd happily erase the Bill of Rights, every bit as fast as Dubya has
They scream bloody murder about his erasures, but see no irony in their would-be erasures. As a true believer in most of their causes, it's hard to
Now, IF you are right that a majority of Americans "disapprove" of homosexuality, my question is, How far to they think they're entitled to go with
that disapproval? Obviously they're welcome to their attitudes. But in the last 20 years, the traditional list of types of speech NOT protected by
the First Amendment--e.g., defamation, false advertising, incitement to immediate violent crimes and a couple of others that don't come immediately to
my mind--has grown by one: HATE SPEECH based on a person's race, national origin, and perhaps gender or religion or sexual orientation.
I haven't followed the debate real closely because I'm immersed in criminal law, and I'm so enamored of First Amendment rights that I prefer to stick
with the traditional First Amendment line: Words inherently likely to cause an immediate violent response. Obviously this would apply to "the n
word," but I don't know just how many others it applies to.
20 years ago, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 or 6-3 decisions written by Kennedy's anything-but-liberal jurist, Byron White, said it is "facetious at
best" to suggest the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to sexual orientation.
Well, it applies in California, and surely in many other states, these 21 years later. And violence-inspiring hate speech toward gays can get people
arrested in a lot of states, of course including California. Of all the Constitutional hot points in my lifetime, this is the one I feel most
conflicted about. But the fact a majority of Americans disapprove of homosexuals, if fact it be, is a sad comment about something which has ALWAYS
existed and always WILL, and is hardly justification for discrediting the women's movement in sports.
I can say this for certain. I used to hitchhike all over the place, from ages 16 through 22 (1969-1975). Twice, I was picked up by gay men. They
both took "no" for an immediate answer--in sharp contrast to the many drunken men we've all seen in bars, hitting on women until the women literally
hit on them. So they've never caused me any problem and they leave me alone. And I will NEVER understand why so many people are freaked out about
The standard p.c. response is "because y'all are secretly insecure about your own sexuality." I think we all know that's cr@p. I would bet that no
guy here is insecure about his own sexuality, whatever it may be. I know I'm not, though I would sure hate like hell if I'd have turned out to be gay
in this country.
But please, PLEASE, PLEASE don't tell me the public has a right--whether it's a religious right or a majority-rules right or whatever--to
oppress hundreds of millions of living people for something they can no more change than I can change my eye color.
[Edited on 4/27/06 by BaseballHistoryNut]