this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
493 points (100.0% liked)

196

16488 readers
1617 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] onion@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a man and I will never be able to comoete in the top mens league either.

But I like how it works in boxing, where there's a light-weight class where I could compete fairly. That's what I was thinking of

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But weight doesn't mean anything. An equal weight man and woman will still be in a totally different class. Also, it's not about what you can do now, but about your potential. Someone who is currently physically within the "male range" will have to do way less to achieve the same performance as someone within the "female range". Mixing them together would be very demotivating to anyone not in the "male range" physically since they'd have to work insanely hard to even beat the less serious men.

Note: I'm using "male/female range" rather than man/woman because gender doesn't necessarily align with physical build.

[–] cannibalia 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source? I'm afab and fucking sick of being told this with a flimsy hand wave of 'biology'. Give me some stats.

[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@dormi.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You need a source to know that a man and woman at the same weight class would be advantageous to the man?

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

For it to be considered an empirically true statement, yes.

[–] onion@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

That is why I wrote "skill based" in my top comment, the weight classes where just an example