Thread by @Scientific_Bird

GENDER SEGREGATION IN SPORTS ♂️♀️

A few thoughts on gender segregation in sports—physical and mental.

Thread (1/n).

2/n I obviously believe that men have an inherent advantage when it comes to most physical sports. Sometimes arguments are put forward by some people that this is just a 'myth', but I view these people as fundamentally unreasonable.

3/n Men are stronger and faster than women are. This is simply a difference in potential that would be difficult to eradicate in a fair and meritocratic world. Serena Williams explains how she would perform against a top-tier male tennis player:

4/n The masculinization that happens to males—especially during puberty—as a function of masculinizing hormones are everlasting. Bone density, muscles and height are all affected, and much more.

5/n A postpuberty male-to-female transgender individual does not entirely lose this advantage by going on hormone therapy. Their body has already been built with the masculine advantage.

6/n It is not 'fair' if a male-to-female transgender individual has low testosterone numbers now. Puberty forever altered their bodies.

A single transgender individual can, when allowed, suddenly dominate an entire sport. But this transgender advantage only goes one direction.

7/n People who recognize this difference, they tend to view gender segregation in sports as obvious and the reasonable decision.

However, I don't think that's necessarily the case. There are good arguments for ending gender segregation even if you recognize this difference.

8/n Just like average group differences exist, there are also massive individual differences.

No matter how much I practiced as a child, I would NEVER have become a top-tier basketball player. I simply don't have the natural build for that, especially height.

9/n The question is: why do we segregate based on gender difference, but not individual differences in potential?

Why aren't there basketball leagues with short people, and leagues with tall people?

It could be argued that the gender segregation is fairly arbitrary.

10/n Only few sports do something somewhat resembling this. For example, weight classes in fighting sports.

But for most sports, all males are in competition with each other, as all females are in competition with each other.

11/n The question is: if I should accept that I will never become a top-tier basketball player, why should this same thing not extend towards gender differences?

Just let everyone play, and if a female player is good enough, they will be selected. If not, they won't.

12/n While I think this argument is valid and strong, I ultimately do think it's probably for the best to continue gender segregation in sports.

It would be too discouraging for girls who love sports to think that they most likely would never have a chance to become top tier.

13/n I don't think this would ultimately have good social consequences. Therefore, I say that we keep gender segregation in physical sports. Unless someone convinces me otherwise.

14/n One question that I find more interesting is: what would happen if gender segregation in mental sports (such as chess) disappeared?

Yes, women can compete with men. However, there is a women-only league, and presumably this affects practice patterns.

15/n What would happen if all tournaments always were for both men and women—no women only tournaments or leagues?

Some people say that there is no reason to believe that women wouldn't catch up to men. However, I don't know how plausible this is.

16/n At this exact point in time, there is ONE woman in the top 100 rankings in chess. Hou Yifan is at number 86, and she is said to be far ahead of the current second best woman.

17/n Why are the top chess positions so dominated by men? Only one woman has ever reached a top ten ranking (Judit Polgár).

I think that at least two (average) psychological sex differences contribute to this disparity.

18/n First, studies have quite conclusively shown that men are more variable in their cognitive abilities than women are. They have more 'Dumbbells' as well as 'Nobels.'

I won't go into the evidence here, but I find the evidence convincing that this is true.

19/n From this a natural consequence follows. Even if there is no average difference in ability between men and women, men will still be overrepresented among the absolute best individuals (as well as the worst, but we don't notice the worst).

20/n The second possible contributor is the fact that men are possibly more competitively minded. And that men are more likely to focus narrowly on specific tasks, whereas women tend to want to live more balanced lives.

21/n This is something that Camilla Benbow has found in the lifestyle choices and preferences of the extremely intellectually gifted.

Even among intellectual genius women, they are more likely to say that they want to lead a balanced life with many facets to them.

22/n To become the absolute best at something, you have to focus on that thing rather intensly. If women are less likely to focus extremely intensly on one thing, that may also be a contributor to their underrepresentation at the absolute top of performance.

23/n I can't claim to know for sure, but it would be interesting to see what would happen.

Tell me what you think. Thread over.

People who have previously been interested in this sort of question:
@RealYeyoZa @AndrewCutler13 @hbdchick @KirkegaardEmil @phl43 @ImHardcory