First Female to Tryout for NFL

[ivanvamp]

But you have the opportunity to play, you just aren't good enough. if you had been playing and training an equal amount of time then you'd most likely beat her. In other words, the women who can compete and beat you don't have an innate physical advantage over you, they are just more skilled.

There are plenty of girls/women who have an innate physical advantage over boys/men. Brittany Griner, at 6'8" tall, has a distinctive and innate physical advantage over tons of college seniors I know at the university I work at.

At the kid level, most girls mature before boys do, so it is pretty common to see some 9-year old girls being bigger and stronger than 9-year old boys. Because of the rate of development, these girls have a distinct, innate physical advantage.

This is the problem with generalizations; we can almost always find exceptions, and those exceptions are what make these cases interesting.

I guess you've actually found a sport where men have a physical disadvantage so I say let them try to compete with 5'2 15 year old girls on the balance beam and see how that works out

Heh I hear you. But the problem is that I don't think they'd ever even allow a man to compete with them. Thus the hypocrisy that Deus and others are pointing out.

But for pretty much all other sports men have an advantage and their league will be superior on the whole, so nothing is lost by "letting" women compete if a team wants to have them.

Which is another point, none of the professional leagues are expressly "men's" leagues, so I think this assumption that those advocating that a capable woman bear the burden of proof to persuade others that the a sports franchise is free to hire whoever they think will most benefit their team is mistaken.

Yes, this is true. And I'm fine with it being that way. If Michelle Wie can outplay Rory McIlroy, let her have at it. If Serena Williams can play on the men's tour, fine, let's see how it goes. She'd get obliterated, as would Wie. But hey, so what?

Geno Auriemma said a few years ago that the UConn men's team could literally name the score against his women's national championship squad. He wasn't even sure his women could even successfully get an actual shot attempt if the men didn't want them to.


By the way, I have two daughters that are both good athletes, and I want them both to have as many opportunities to play as possible. I also see the other side of it, though, and believe there is a place in our society for single gender institutions and organizations.

 

[mgteich]

C'mon. I've just been told that sharing locker rooms was one of the major issues. I thought we were beyond such nonsense. Certainly, the Supreme Court is. Are we going to kick out female sportscasters yet again?

You tell me then. What is the danger to sport of having open competition, with the expectation that very, very few women would make any open team for decades, if ever?

This is not a maturity issue. You surely know this.



It's not about feeling threatened. Acting as if it is does not become you, as it's just a method of cutting off discussion on a subject where you have the significantly weaker argument.

 

[TyronePoole]

There are plenty of girls/women who have an innate physical advantage over boys/men. Brittany Griner, at 6'8" tall, has a distinctive and innate physical advantage over tons of college seniors I know at the university I work at.

At the kid level, most girls mature before boys do, so it is pretty common to see some 9-year old girls being bigger and stronger than 9-year old boys. Because of the rate of development, these girls have a distinct, innate physical advantage.

This is the problem with generalizations; we can almost always find exceptions, and those exceptions are what make these cases interesting.

Like I said though, males are the clearest and fairest delineation we can make when it comes to a physical advantage. Even a girl who's 6'8 would get trounced by those college seniors with similar training, and it doesn't make much sense to restrict and separate based on height. The fact is that if you want the most competitive league, it will be filled almost entirely with males, and anyone should be able to sompete in it if they have the ability. There's no logical test I can think of where it makes any sense to look at a guy and decide he's physically disadvantaged enough to play in a female league. it goes without saying that not everyone can compete at the highest levels.

Heh I hear you. But the problem is that I don't think they'd ever even allow a man to compete with them. Thus the hypocrisy that Deus and others are pointing out.

The only hypocrisy here that I can see is arguing that there are innate physical differences and then saying that gender segregation should be a two way street. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Yes, this is true. And I'm fine with it being that way. If Michelle Wie can outplay Rory McIlroy, let her have at it. If Serena Williams can play on the men's tour, fine, let's see how it goes. She'd get obliterated, as would Wie. But hey, so what?

Geno Auriemma said a few years ago that the UConn men's team could literally name the score against his women's national championship squad. He wasn't even sure his women could even successfully get an actual shot attempt if the men didn't want them to.


By the way, I have two daughters that are both good athletes, and I want them both to have as many opportunities to play as possible. I also see the other side of it, though, and believe there is a place in our society for single gender institutions and organizations.

I think everyone agrees that there is a place for women-only sports. If you can agree that there are physiological differences that make the two genders inherently unequal then I don't see how you can say that acknowledging that the rules should be unequal is hypocritical. it's the exact opposite.

 

[Tunescribe]

What is the danger to sport of having open competition, with the expectation that very, very few women would make any open team for decades, if ever?

Aside from obvious physical danger in contact sports, it defies the true spirit of competition on an equal playing field. It's fundamentally unfair to women, and intellectually dishonest to pretend that women would achieve anything of value from pursuing certain failure.

 

[Deus Irae]

C'mon. I've just been told that sharing locker rooms was one of the major issues. I thought we were beyond such nonsense. Certainly, the Supreme Court is. Are we going to kick out female sportscasters yet again?

Where did the Supreme Court rule that teams, schools, and everyone else had to have unisex and co-ed lockers, thus putting the issue momentarily to rest? Also, when did it happen that every Supreme Court ruling became irreversible?

You tell me then. What is the danger to sport of having open competition, with the expectation that very, very few women would make any open team for decades, if ever?

The danger(s), if any, will vary by sport. To be deliberately extreme (in order to avoid arguments on the margin), the imaginary sport of 'snail walking', where the goal is to walk from one spot to another at the slowest possible pace, would likely not suffer from it at all. The sport of "beating the everloving piss out of your opponent, with no mercy, while using extremely heavy blunt objects" would likely face an enormous amount of issues.

Or do you honestly believe that the Casey Martin case was a one-off involving a crippled man that would never come up in the same, or similar fashion, requiring league rules changes in a sports case again? If so, you really need to look at how this nation's laws work and evolve.

 

[TyronePoole]

Aside from obvious physical danger in contact sports, it defies the true spirit of competition on an equal playing field. It's fundamentally unfair to women, and intellectually dishonest to pretend that women would achieve anything of value from pursuing certain failure.

so you're entire argument is "we shouldn't get their hopes up?" Come on, that's absurd.

 

[ivanvamp]

Like I said though, males are the clearest and fairest delineation we can make when it comes to a physical advantage. Even a girl who's 6'8 would get trounced by those college seniors with similar training, and it doesn't make much sense to restrict and separate based on height. The fact is that if you want the most competitive league, it will be filled almost entirely with males, and anyone should be able to sompete in it if they have the ability. There's no logical test I can think of where it makes any sense to look at a guy and decide he's physically disadvantaged enough to play in a female league. it goes without saying that not everyone can compete at the highest levels.

Instead of gender-based competition you could simply have skill-based competition. For example, you could have at the middle school level four teams: A, B, C, and D. My kids' middle school has a boys' A and B, and a girls' A and B. So there are four teams. Just have those same four teams, but instead of delineating by gender, do so on the basis of skill. There are plenty of girls that would still get to play middle school basketball. And then you could have town rec leagues beyond that if necessary.

The only hypocrisy here that I can see is arguing that there are innate physical differences and then saying that gender segregation should be a two way street. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Sure it does. See my example above. It is a mistake to think that boys and girls (or men and women) are equal in everything. But it makes sense to acknowledge this and then set up a system like I described above. You just know that boys would tend to make up most of the A and probably B teams, and girls would make up most of the C and D teams. But since that would likely be true in most every school, you're still having equal competition across the board. And both boys and girls are still getting to play.

I think everyone agrees that there is a place for women-only sports. If you can agree that there are physiological differences that make the two genders inherently unequal then I don't see how you can say that acknowledging that the rules should be unequal is hypocritical. it's the exact opposite.

But then why stop only at a certain level? The physiological differences in 25-year old world class male athletes and 25-year old world class female athletes in the same sport are stark and plain to see as well. Yet what we're arguing about here is including women with men anyway, because there might be *some* exceptions to what appear to be a near-universal rule.

 

[Tunescribe]

so you're entire argument is "we shouldn't get their hopes up?" Come on, that's absurd.

Not at all. I'm arguing there's no reasonable basis for considering it to begin with. You don't see greyhounds competing with horses on the race track. Women and men are both human, but quite different in physical makeup at fundamental levels that never will change.

 

[TyronePoole]

Where did the Supreme Court rule that teams, schools, and everyone else had to have unisex and co-ed lockers, thus putting the issue momentarily to rest? Also, when did it happen that every Supreme Court ruling became irreversible?



The danger(s), if any, will vary by sport. To be deliberately extreme (in order to avoid arguments on the margin), the imaginary sport of 'snail walking', where the goal is to walk from one spot to another at the slowest possible pace, would likely not suffer from it at all. The sport of "beating the everloving piss out of your opponent, with no mercy, while using extremely heavy blunt objects" would likely face an enormous amount of issues.

Or do you honestly believe that the Casey Martin case was a one-off involving a crippled man that would never come up in the same, or similar fashion, requiring league rules changes in a sports case again? If so, you really need to look at how this nation's laws work and evolve.

This is a terrible analogy. For one, the martin decision hinged on the fact that the golf courses themselves couldn't restrict access to handicapped people. Also, the arguments against Martin were that he gained an advantage by having a physical aid allowed, an argument which has no parrallel when it comes to a woman who gains entry to a sport based on merit.

Also, the PGA failed to show that walking was fundamental to the game. What similar aspect of football is there for women that you are afraid could be argued is not fundamental to the game?

 

[TyronePoole]

Not at all. I'm arguing there's no reasonable basis for considering it to begin with. You don't see greyhounds competing with horses on the race track. Women and men are both human, but quite different in physical makeup at fundamental levels that never will change.

That's an entirely different sport with two different species, so another bad analogy imo. Whether or not it's theoretically possible for a woman to compete is one thing. Writing a rule prohibiting it even though you've decided it's impossible because you think it's your place to be the arbiter of female expectations is absurd.

 

[Tunescribe]

That's an entirely different sport with two different species, so another bad analogy imo. Whether or not it's theoretically possible for a woman to compete is one thing. Writing a rule prohibiting it even though you've decided it's impossible because you think it's your place to be the arbiter of female expectations is absurd.

"Arbiter of female expectations" ... that's a hoot! laugh Yes, in a "sensible world" the NFL would prohibit female tryouts because the very notion is dishonest on multiple levels. But doing so would be poor marketing PR, so it'll never be officially addressed. I'll tell you what's REALLY absurd: your willfully ignorant dismissal of physical gender differences in favor of grossly misplaced sociopolitical idealism.

 

[TyronePoole]

"Arbiter of female expectations" ... that's a hoot! laugh Yes, in a "sensible world" the NFL would prohibit female tryouts because the very notion is dishonest on multiple levels. But doing so would be poor marketing PR, so it'll never be officially addressed. I'll tell you what's REALLY absurd: your willfully ignorant dismissal of physical gender differences in favor of grossly misplaced sociopolitical idealism.

what are the gender differences I've ignored exactly? I can't possibly fathom how you'd read any of my posts and come to the conclusion that I think anything other than women are physically different than men in a very big way.

Just pretending that I've said something else so you can continue insisting that there should be a rule prohibiting an outcome you've decided is impossible is the only willfuly ignorant dismissal going on here.

 

[Joker]

here's the ESPN interview video...and a clip of her kicking what looks like a 30 yard field goal indoors with stretch pants on and sneakers....listen to her explain her qualifications to attend an NFL tryout....seems, as of 2012, Goodell has decided anyone can apply to play NFL football....Everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.
Andy Warhol

Female will compete at regional combine for first time - NFL.com

 

[Tunescribe]

what are the gender differences I've ignored exactly? I can't possibly fathom how you'd read any of my posts and come to the conclusion that I think anything other than women are physically different than men in a very big way.

Just pretending that I've said something else so you can continue insisting that there should be a rule prohibiting an outcome you've decided is impossible is the only willfuly ignorant dismissal going on here.

You're just crazymaking. I never "insisted there should be a rule." I stated that the only way to end the nonsensical PC wish-spinning by folks like you is to establish such a rule. But it'll never happen and I've acknowledged that already more than once, if you'd just pay attention. The NFL hasn't banned female tryouts because keeping outlandish fantasies alive is good PR ($$$), as intellectually dishonest as it might be.

The fact you keep hammering away at this goofy notion that women should be allowed/encouraged to compete with men at the professional sports level is tacit dismissal of the INHERENT physiological gender differences precluding them from success. It's a contradiction in terms.

 

[TyronePoole]

You're just crazymaking. I never "insisted there should be a rule." I stated that the only way to end the nonsensical PC wish-spinning by folks like you is to establish such a rule. But it'll never happen and I've acknowledged that already more than once, if you'd just pay attention. The NFL hasn't banned female tryouts because keeping outlandish fantasies alive is good PR ($$$), as intellectually dishonest as it might be.

The fact you keep hammering away at this goofy notion that women should be allowed/encouraged to compete with men at the professional sports level is tacit dismissal of the INHERENT physiological gender differences precluding them from success. It's a contradiction in terms.

The discussion is about if, in theory, a woman was good enough to compete should she be allowed to. I've never once said that it's on the horizon or even likely to happen ever.

There's zero connection between whether an event is likely to happen and whether it should be allowed to happen if it does occur.

If you're having some wholly different and irrelevant conversation with yourself then have at it, I'll butt out.

 

[Tunescribe]

here's the ESPN interview video...and a clip of her kicking what looks like a 30 yard field goal indoors with stretch pants on and sneakers....listen to her explain her qualifications to attend an NFL tryout....seems, as of 2012, Goodell has decided anyone can apply to play NFL football....Everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.
Andy Warhol

Female will compete at regional combine for first time - NFL.com

In the link provided by the OP she indirectly admitted she's not serious about trying to make an NFL roster, that it's a ploy to bring attention to her video game enterprise. Which makes this whole thing an even greater farce to begin with.

 

[TyronePoole]

In the link provided by the OP she indirectly admitted she's not serious about trying to make an NFL roster, that it's a ploy to bring attention to her video game enterprise. Which makes this whole thing an even greater farce to begin with.

she doesn't say this whatsoever.

 

[Tunescribe]

The discussion is about if, in theory, a woman was good enough to compete should she be allowed to. I've never once said that it's on the horizon or even likely to happen ever.

Oh, OK. Here's a similarly plausible fantasy-based scenario (for reasons of comparison): If George Blanda rises from the grave and asks for a tryout, should he be allowed to?

There's zero connection between whether an event is likely to happen and whether it should be allowed to happen if it does occur.

If you're having some wholly different and irrelevant conversation with yourself then have at it,

I've no idea what you're referring to here.

I'll butt out.

That's reasonable self advice.

 

[Fencer]

No, you just reiterated what you think is acceptable. I'm asking why. Why is it ok to have such restrictions at these levels but not at the highest levels?

Moreover, consider gymnastics. There is men's and women's sports. But some of the events are different. You cannot do the balance beam if you are a man. Men's beam does not exist as a sport. But if you're a guy and that's what you want to do, why shouldn't you be allowed to compete?

If you're suggesting that men should be allowed to compete on women's gymnastic apparatuses and vice-versa, I agree.

As to why it's OK to have restrictions at lower levels -- improved competition, improved training, efficiency of various kinds, etc. Lots of reasons, that I have little doubt you agree with.

 

[Fencer]

It's fundamentally unfair to women, and intellectually dishonest to pretend that women would achieve anything of value from pursuing certain failure.

That has been said about MANY activities in which women have subsequently excelled at the highest levels.