Posted on 05/15/2012 11:43:45 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
You would think that after decades of Title IX enforcement, sex discrimination in school sports would be a thing of the past. But this isn’t the case in Suffolk County, New York, where a skilled student-athlete is being denied the right to compete in sports based solely on sex.
The child is 13-year-old Keeling Pilaro, who for the last two years has been a member of Southampton High School girls’ field hockey team. He tried out for it and was allowed to play because there are no boys’ field hockey teams anywhere in the county. So what’s the problem now?
He’s too good, say Suffolk officials.
(Translation: he’s a boy who is too good.)
To many, Keeling’s exclusion may seem entirely intuitive and just. This is why we have separate sports categories for men and women, boys and girls, right? Not so fast.
Title IX, the federal legislation mandating equal opportunity for the sexes in schools, has long been interpreted to mean that a student must be allowed to try out for an opposite-sex team if there’s no corresponding team for his sex. Because of this, girls have occasionally appeared on boys’ teams. In fact, a traditionalist Catholic Arizona high school just forfeited the Arizona Charter Athletic Association championship because of the presence of a female player on the opposing team.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
A 40 year old male couch potato can snap the arm off a 25 year old female body builder. And the couch potato can’t conceive. Men and women are different. Deal with it, folks.
I exaggerate, but not by much.
Before everyone jumps ugly on this kid for playing a “girls” sport, you need to do your homework.
In places where men play field hockey, it is an exciting and sometimes brutal sport. The ball moves faster, the men are more physical, and the game is just all around better.
Its too bad more American men do not play, as it provides a great alternative to baseball in the summer.
We already have a fast, physical spring/summer alternative to baseball called lacrosse. As a bonus it is native to this continent.
Baseball has a alternative. It’s called Lacrosse. It’s a game for those who like the speed and brutality of hockey without the game slowing penalties.
Oh, I have no argument with that. I just wanted to check the comments about a boy playing a girls game.
Field Hockey, when played by adult men, is as exciting as Lacrosse. I know its hard to believe. But its true.
And Lacrosse is my favorite spring sport (I photograph sports for a living.)
Title IX: because a small group of liberals are convinced that someone, somewhere wants to watch women’s crew.
Irish Hurling comes to mind.
Or game slowing fights.
See my answer on #7....
If anything, those differences, which are very real, actually almost make the case for the asymmetric treatment women seem to want here:
If a girl is big and strong and ‘good’ enough to safely have compete on the boys’ team for a sport and there’s no equivalent girls’ team, they let her play.
If a boy is small and weak and ‘bad’ enough to safely have compete on the girls’ team, they let him play.
Having small, weak, ‘bad’ girls play on the boys’ team or having big, strong, ‘good’ boys play on the girls’ team makes no sense.
Identity Politics only matters when you serve The Party. Just ask Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas.
—Having small, weak, ‘bad’ girls play on the boys’ team or having big, strong, ‘good’ boys play on the girls’ team makes no sense.—
I strongly agree. They need to get over trying to “overequalize” us.
I have often said that if I were Czar, and I mean real Czar and not a wimpy Obama czar, I would ban K-12 soccer, issue everyone lacrosse gear, and make it the official alternate Spring sport to baseball. Lacrosse has everything soccer does not - action, contact, scoring, and it requires opposable thumbs.
Really there’s no way to test that a boy is ‘bad’ enough to play with the girls, so I simply wouldn’t allow it.
I could see a case made for the freakish girl who’s good enough to play on the boys team, when there’s no equivalent team for her. After all, she can try out and make it or not make it just like any of the boys.
But that asymmetry is problematic, so I’d understand scratching that too.
You obviously didn't watch Sunday's Manchester City-QPR match.
—After all, she can try out and make it or not make it just like any of the boys.—
Though I consider it a “camel’s nose” issue, that might be a good way to do it.
The problem is that if you do it across the board (good girl plays with boys and bad boy plays with girls, you end up with one of those “rose by any name” scenarios:
You end up with the “good team” (which is mostly boys) and the “bad team” (which is mostly girls). I’m not sure how people would react to that.
Like all liberal policies,
it’s not about bringing up those without,
but about bringing down those with.
Yeah, I agree. I think the usual case is made just for girls playing on boys’ teams when there is no girls’ team in that sport. With more boys often playing sports, there may well be more choices among the boys’ teams.
But I just think it’s hard to do without someone somewhere thinking it’s unfair, so it probably just should be scratched. The old-fashioned ‘segregation’ is probably good enough for all but non-competitive intramural-type sports.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.