Tonight's Football

[Worthy4England]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would struggle to say they didn't know "men v women" often isn't fair at sports. What expectation do we need to set?

[Mar]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would struggle to say they didn't know "men v women" often isn't fair at sports. What expectation do we need to set?

I think its more making sure football is provisioned for all to take part, and then working from there. I don't care how decent Carl->Carla is, just that they're adequately put into a competition that they've not got a ridiculous advantage.

I'm sure there are some men out there that are worse than our women's national team. Don't think there would be an issue if they were pitted against one another.

I think its more important to find competitive matches rather than what gender people are. Just like if a woman is good enough, she should be playing in the Premier League. No-one cares about age, gender or colour. It's should be about how good you are.

[Prufrock]

That's all true and fair enough but at elite sport basically all men are better than all women. And while the England women's team would beat my Saturday football team no-one is going to pay them professionally to do so. We've just come off a weird spell of people literally arguing that there is no male advantage and it's all social (women were apparently banned from football due to the risk of them showing men up in the 1920's :eyeroll: )

Thankfully reason seems to broadly be taking hold and most sports governing bodies seem to be leaning towards a female category and then an open category (I think maybe swimming recently had female, male, and open where, unsurprisingly they had zero entrants to the open category). That seems clearly to be the answer to me.

[Worthy4England]

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would struggle to say they didn't know "men v women" often isn't fair at sports. What expectation do we need to set?

I think its more making sure football is provisioned for all to take part, and then working from there. I don't care how decent Carl->Carla is, just that they're adequately put into a competition that they've not got a ridiculous advantage.

I'm sure there are some men out there that are worse than our women's national team. Don't think there would be an issue if they were pitted against one another.

I think its more important to find competitive matches rather than what gender people are. Just like if a woman is good enough, she should be playing in the Premier League. No-one cares about age, gender or colour. It's should be about how good you are.

There's a lot of whatifism in this.

I have no problem at all with encouraging and trying to facilitate people (all people) having wide access to sport. I have a problem with people taking the pi$$. You can't rationalise "gender" as a less important part of the story and actually that approach (don't care about age, gender or colour) would lead you to fully mixed leagues, no over 40's leagues etc. Best of luck hawking that notion to the WSL and Vets Leagues.

Who is making the pick as to what League Carl/Carla should play in, in the Baisingstoke Sunday League pyramid to ensure they don't have the major advantage you mention?

The pic that I put in the post on this, stood out for me. The person might be a less "capable" footballer than some of their team mates, but they're still half a foot taller and two feet wider! It's nonsense.

[boltonboris]

My daughter and another girl recently trialled with the 'Boys' team at their school. They both got into the team on merit, so they re-named it the Mixed team. To much disgust by some of the lads.

[Worthy4England]

My daughter and another girl recently trialled with the 'Boys' team at their school. They both got into the team on merit, so they re-named it the Mixed team. To much disgust by some of the lads.

Well done, her. I'm fine with that bit.

[Mar]

There's a lot of whatifism in this.

I have no problem at all with encouraging and trying to facilitate people (all people) having wide access to sport. I have a problem with people taking the pi$$. You can't rationalise "gender" as a less important part of the story and actually that approach (don't care about age, gender or colour) would lead you to fully mixed leagues, no over 40's leagues etc. Best of luck hawking that notion to the WSL and Vets Leagues.

I think we can all agree the current situation is not good. I'm not even against leagues based upon gender, i'm just advocating for a league setup that catches these so called outliers so that they've got a place to go play if they don't conform to the current setup. If there is a setup where they can play, then there shouldn't be any excuse. Should be a case of birth gender first and then if not here's the other group accessible for all.

Whatever stops the pi$$ taking I guess.

Who is making the pick as to what League Carl/Carla should play in, in the Baisingstoke Sunday League pyramid to ensure they don't have the major advantage you mention?

The pic that I put in the post on this, stood out for me. The person might be a less "capable" footballer than some of their team mates, but they're still half a foot taller and two feet wider! It's nonsense.

You mention people being taller and wider, but do we assign leagues based upon height and weight? Crouch would've had to play in his own league. There's a noticeable advantage from Crouch to say Rod Wallace, but we don't discriminate based upon height, or other genetic factors, so why is gender so important. It's unfair on small people but we've not got a society setup to separate sports based on that. I've coached players before with that sort of mismatch and its unfair and yet, somehow we're hung up on gender and not other factors.

[TANGODANCER]

It isn't just about sport is it? Emily Pankhurst didn't play football.

Whatever you believe, there are two species of human life, male and female. God made made man and he made women. He gave them recognisable differences so that together they could reproduce children and complete the cycle of life. These are the two defined genders and have been since time began. ? ...... The rest of my long initial post I've deleted to avoid antagonism.

Shoot me down if you will, but that's what I've believed all my life. The modern issues of "Trans" etc are mankind's meddling with God and nature. Crackpot issues of all sex toilets etc are a violation of said nature. ( periods, pregnancy etc) How exactly do you manage equality there? (If I had to use one I'd pxxx in a corner somewhere and chance the consequences. Probably be accused of "indecent exposure", but there you go.). My eternal question, is "who decides these things and makes them law?"... My real interest is probably like most of you, that I have kids, grandkids and great grandkids of both sexes. What does the future hold for them apart from confusion?

[Hoboh]

Put into prospective.

When I was a kid there was a girl of similar age who was a cracking footballer and used to run rings around us, at that level, fine, but in a harder fought professional level I doubt it would be anything but fine.
Having watched the brutality of the rugby World Cup, can anyone seriously suggest females could take part? Or for that matter people born male not have a serious advantage playing in a women's team?
At lower levels inclusion is possible, higher up? Naww.

[Prufrock]

]

You mention people being taller and wider, but do we assign leagues based upon height and weight? Crouch would've had to play in his own league. There's a noticeable advantage from Crouch to say Rod Wallace, but we don't discriminate based upon height, or other genetic factors, so why is gender so important. It's unfair on small people but we've not got a society setup to separate sports based on that. I've coached players before with that sort of mismatch and its unfair and yet, somehow we're hung up on gender and not other factors.

Of course some people always have an advantage, but Rod Wallace was still able to compete at the top level because he was quick and strong and had other comparable elite skills.

The physical differences for men and women utterly preclude women from competing at the top level against men, it's why there's a separate category, and why it's such a fierce fight for women athletes.

To take two examples:

- the women's world record for the 100m is 10.49 seconds, set (very possibly drug assisted) by Florence Joyner-Griffith in 1988. So far in 2023 1,124 different men have run faster than that time. One thousand, one hundred and twenty four, this year alone.

- Millie Bright is the current England captain and centre back. She's a tall centre back who towers over strikers on the pitch and is great in the air. She is 5ft 10, the *average* height for men in the UK.

Away from elite sport, the boundaries are less clear and of course *some* women can compete with *some* men, but the physical differences are much bigger. There are some leagues that are designed to be mixed, and that's great! Tag rugby say, with a minimum of x people from each gender, but even at amateur level women are entitled to compete only against other women if they want to.

The issue here is people forcing those leagues to accept male born people. Imagine you give up your Saturday to travel to an away game for your team and then you get shoulder barged off the ball two mins in by someone who literally weighs twice what you do.

[boltonboris]

It's a fierce fight for Women athletes that a lot of them can't discuss for fear of being 'cancelled' and I know that makes me sound like a gammon, but it does have truth to it.

People have lost sponsorships for speaking out against Trans Athletes competing in their category. That female college swimmer was one. Gone from being the best in the country, to finishing comfortably second to an athlete who was born a man. (I don't even know if that language is allowed now!)

Truth is, it is such an emotive and difficult subject (whether it should be, or not) and that's why no clear ruling has been brought in. Because everyone is walking on eggshells

[Mar]

Prufrock, i'm not saying we abolish male and female sports, but more setup a category that those that are switching genders can get put into.

I get that men and women are different, but if we say that trans folks can't play in their sport then where are they supposed to go? Lets solve the problem and just give them a league that supports mixed genders.

It isn't just about sport is it? Emily Pankhurst didn't play football.

Whatever you believe, there are two species of human life, male and female. God made made man and he made women. He gave them recognisable differences so that together they could reproduce children and complete the cycle of life. These are the two defined genders and have been since time began. ? ...... The rest of my long initial post I've deleted to avoid antagonism.

Shoot me down if you will, but that's what I've believed all my life. The modern issues of "Trans" etc are mankind's meddling with God and nature. Crackpot issues of all sex toilets etc are a violation of said nature. ( periods, pregnancy etc) How exactly do you manage equality there? (If I had to use one I'd pxxx in a corner somewhere and chance the consequences. Probably be accused of "indecent exposure", but there you go.). My eternal question, is "who decides these things and makes them law?"... My real interest is probably like most of you, that I have kids, grandkids and great grandkids of both sexes. What does the future hold for them apart from confusion?

All sex toilets are a violation of nature? Pretty sure in the earliest days of man we all pissed in the same woods. I'd argue we should just have cubicles without gender on it and be done with it, that way no-one is sharing with another and they're just being used for emptying bowels.

Put into prospective.

When I was a kid there was a girl of similar age who was a cracking footballer and used to run rings around us, at that level, fine, but in a harder fought professional level I doubt it would be anything but fine.
Having watched the brutality of the rugby World Cup, can anyone seriously suggest females could take part? Or for that matter people born male not have a serious advantage playing in a women's team?
At lower levels inclusion is possible, higher up? Naww.

Exactly Hoboh. Males do have an advantage. So anyone transitioning would have an advantage competitively. To prevent that impacting womens sports, lets just give them a mixed gender sporting opportunity where everyone can choose to compete in.

[Mar]

It's a fierce fight for Women athletes that a lot of them can't discuss for fear of being 'cancelled' and I know that makes me sound like a gammon, but it does have truth to it.

People have lost sponsorships for speaking out against Trans Athletes competing in their category. That female college swimmer was one. Gone from being the best in the country, to finishing comfortably second to an athlete who was born a man. (I don't even know if that language is allowed now!)

Truth is, it is such an emotive and difficult subject (whether it should be, or not) and that's why no clear ruling has been brought in. Because everyone is walking on eggshells

Indeed, people do walk on eggshells around this matter. I don't think there will ever be a consensus on this, but I do think there should be a way of making sport more accessible and I can only think that would help people to make the tough decisions on this.

[boltonboris]

The main issue will be logistics. Whilst we all think the world is awash with Trans people, the reality is very different. There is not enough demand to create teams / leagues / associations for Trans people and Trans athletes, which is why they're in limbo, so to speak.

You could feasibly have a number of specialist Transgender football teams, but how do they play eachother, when the likelihood is that a team from Manchester would have to go and play a team in Birmingham, London etc and not just pop over the road to the next club and play their trans team

[Prufrock]

Agree with that. There aren't enough trans people to have a third category, world swimming had an event with three categories recently and got zero entries for the "open" category.

Which takes you back to having women only, and then open to everyone. Which for me is the right answer, but the counter argument from trans people would be in reality that's still the same thing, because they'd say they are women and so should be in the women's category.

[Worthy4England]

There's a lot of whatifism in this.

I have no problem at all with encouraging and trying to facilitate people (all people) having wide access to sport. I have a problem with people taking the pi$$. You can't rationalise "gender" as a less important part of the story and actually that approach (don't care about age, gender or colour) would lead you to fully mixed leagues, no over 40's leagues etc. Best of luck hawking that notion to the WSL and Vets Leagues.

I think we can all agree the current situation is not good. I'm not even against leagues based upon gender, i'm just advocating for a league setup that catches these so called outliers so that they've got a place to go play if they don't conform to the current setup. If there is a setup where they can play, then there shouldn't be any excuse. Should be a case of birth gender first and then if not here's the other group accessible for all.

Whatever stops the pi$$ taking I guess.

Who is making the pick as to what League Carl/Carla should play in, in the Baisingstoke Sunday League pyramid to ensure they don't have the major advantage you mention?

The pic that I put in the post on this, stood out for me. The person might be a less "capable" footballer than some of their team mates, but they're still half a foot taller and two feet wider! It's nonsense.

You mention people being taller and wider, but do we assign leagues based upon height and weight? Crouch would've had to play in his own league. There's a noticeable advantage from Crouch to say Rod Wallace, but we don't discriminate based upon height, or other genetic factors, so why is gender so important. It's unfair on small people but we've not got a society setup to separate sports based on that. I've coached players before with that sort of mismatch and its unfair and yet, somehow we're hung up on gender and not other factors.

Agree with the first part around ensuring there's a way people can have the opportunity to play, mate. As Pru noted, where there are mixed leagues, they often have low adoption.

We have competitions for people who can't for one reason or another compete in some sort of male/female gender leagues.

https://www.parafootball.com/dwarf-football

https://www.thefa.com/get-involved/play ... d-football

The nonsense is that a small(ish) group of people expect everyone to adapt all rules to fit their circumstances. I'm delighted that so many governing associations are changing their stance on this.

[Worthy4England]

]

You mention people being taller and wider, but do we assign leagues based upon height and weight? Crouch would've had to play in his own league. There's a noticeable advantage from Crouch to say Rod Wallace, but we don't discriminate based upon height, or other genetic factors, so why is gender so important. It's unfair on small people but we've not got a society setup to separate sports based on that. I've coached players before with that sort of mismatch and its unfair and yet, somehow we're hung up on gender and not other factors.

Of course some people always have an advantage, but Rod Wallace was still able to compete at the top level because he was quick and strong and had other comparable elite skills.

The physical differences for men and women utterly preclude women from competing at the top level against men, it's why there's a separate category, and why it's such a fierce fight for women athletes.

To take two examples:

- the women's world record for the 100m is 10.49 seconds, set (very possibly drug assisted) by Florence Joyner-Griffith in 1988. So far in 2023 1,124 different men have run faster than that time. One thousand, one hundred and twenty four, this year alone.

- Millie Bright is the current England captain and centre back. She's a tall centre back who towers over strikers on the pitch and is great in the air. She is 5ft 10, the *average* height for men in the UK.

Away from elite sport, the boundaries are less clear and of course *some* women can compete with *some* men, but the physical differences are much bigger. There are some leagues that are designed to be mixed, and that's great! Tag rugby say, with a minimum of x people from each gender, but even at amateur level women are entitled to compete only against other women if they want to.

The issue here is people forcing those leagues to accept male born people. Imagine you give up your Saturday to travel to an away game for your team and then you get shoulder barged off the ball two mins in by someone who literally weighs twice what you do.

^^ This.

[TANGODANCER]

- Millie Bright is the current England captain and centre back. She's a tall centre back who towers over strikers on the pitch and is great in the air. She is 5ft 10, the *average* height for men in the UK.
The issue here is people forcing those leagues to accept male born people. Imagine you give up your Saturday to travel to an away game for your team and then you get shoulder barged off the ball two mins in by someone who literally weighs twice what you do.

^^ This.
[/quote]

Millie Bright is my favourite women's football player (Just thought I 'd mention that.) But regardless, could you go in full bore with a slide tackle on a woman the same as you would on say a Robbie Savage type male player? Me, I just couldn't even in retaliation or if it were French women footballer Wendie Renard, and she's six feet two. Some things you just cannot do.

Just as an aside, ex Manchester City women player Jill Scott, once served a three match ban for head-butting an Arsenal player in retaliation to a foul. Always an exception to every rule..

[BWFC_Insane]

Agree with all this discussion. What I’d say though is that we are old men, of relative terms. The world is going to change in this regard in the next 50 years whether we like it or not because ultimately society in generations behind us is changing.

[Gooner Girl]

So Everton have got a large point deduction. What do we reckon Man City might (eventually) get?!

About the same as Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and United? Coz they're all at it?

Not sure any of the others have been charged if they are….