Donuts wrote:merging the two would only hurt the women.
women's football now has a chance to grow in terms of revenue, combining the two just puts some if any women in division 2 teams limiting them unless we have a women messi who even then probably wont even make it to a top team.
hurting overall the whole gender and rewarding very few women.

and that's just one issue with the sport
put a 6'4 women next to ibra, and ibra most likely would be stronger. height is irrelevant it's a matter of science and facts.

The opposite. No one takes women's football seriously right now. It's a niche sport. Because it's a niche sport it's accepted and established as a men's sport. Because it's a men's sport, little girls don't have interest in becoming footballers because only men are famous for playing it. And because little girls don't have as much interest as boys, the amount of girls trying to become professional footballers is minimal compared to boys. Which is why men's football has a huge talent pool and is professional and women's football is amateurish and a niche sport in comparison.

You are aware that the hormone mix produced by female and male bodies is different, which leads to difference muscular build and performance? This is a severe difference, completely other than the difference between black male and white male athletes.

Oh, and of course we should also abolish the different age groups then. If a U15 player doesn't cut it against the seniors, it just means he is not good enough.

rwo power wrote:You are aware that the hormone mix produced by female and male bodies is different, which leads to difference muscular build and performance? This is a severe difference, completely other than the difference between black male and white male athletes.

And what's the difference between men producing more testosterone than women and black men having more fast contracting muscle fibers and a higher bone density than white men? Both are characteristics that lead to the same result: an advantage in certain sports. But just because some people are more privileged genetically means we have to seperate?

Less than 5 % of the human race is between 6.5 - 7 ft. tall. That's the usual size of professional NBA basketball players. With 6 ft., as a white boy and as a European my chance to become an NBA player was about 0.0 %. Should I create the midget association for white European basketballers so I and people like me also have a chance to win an Olympic gold medal? Would be taken as seriously as women's football I guess.

Maybe because it is not only the matter of testosterone, but a lot of other differences hormone-wise (you might want to read up on the human hormone system and the biochemical effects the different hormones have on bone structure, muscle build etc. The difference goes quite a bit farther than just the amount of fast fibres or bone density).

Futbol, that's just straight up racist.

RWO, don't bother attempting to conduct a civilised discussion here with futbol about the existence of some sort of mythical 'intelligence gene' that he knows about, despite the world's scientific community being unaware of its existence.

Any analogy to genes that are determinative of gender, height, skin colour, hormone production, likelihood of developing disease, etc. is complete folly because, unlike the 'intelligence gene', these genes have been scientifically proven to exist. There is no proof of a gene that determines intelligence and it follows that there is no proof that the effects of this imaginary intelligence gene are associated with a person's race.

As for the topic of discussion in the OP, men and women inherently have different physiological attributes. This makes it difficult to have an elite-level mixed sport. Of course, there are some professional female footballers whose skill exceeds their male counterparts by far. I see nothing wrong with female athletes who are up to standard playing in mixed teams in elite competition.

Ronda Rousey can probably take down most men, but there is a reason why she's never pitted against a trained man in her weight class. Training can only take you towards your genetic limits, and there isnt a bigger factor to how far your genetics reach than gender. Of course statistically there could always be a female outlier who is talented and physically gifted to make it into the men's top leagues, but then again we're talking about elite male athletes here, the 0.01% males who are capable of playing professional football, so statistically there are more chances of you being struck by a lightening than a female making it into a top level football team. It could happen, but nature and statistics do not support the possibility

@zizzle, also a man hitting a woman or woman hitting a man is not cool, in no way shape or form. i don't care how good she is, there are standards, hitting women isn't something to be championed in the name of sports (and that goes for women too, who think they can disrespect men anyhow they like)....we can't all of a sudden go bruce jenner mode and start changing everything just to step outside the box...i don't even see why anyone would want to watch mixed football matches.....as people have said, there are biological and chemical differences, that go beyond physical attributes and skill level

I dont think Ref will treat all the players equally if this happen.

Forza wrote:Futbol, that's just straight up racist.

RWO, don't bother attempting to conduct a civilised discussion here with futbol about the existence of some sort of mythical 'intelligence gene' that he knows about, despite the world's scientific community being unaware of its existence.

Any analogy to genes that are determinative of gender, height, skin colour, hormone production, likelihood of developing disease, etc. is complete folly because, unlike the 'intelligence gene', these genes have been scientifically proven to exist. There is no proof of a gene that determines intelligence and it follows that there is no proof that the effects of this imaginary intelligence gene are associated with a person's race.

I haven't said anything about "intelligence gene". Even though, now that you contest it and force me to research about it, intelligence does very much seem to have a genetic component according to various scientific data: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n6/full/5201588a.html (Nature Journal, hardly some obscure racist plattform). It was just an example.

BC's argument (and usually the general argument) against mixed gender sports is that women are inferior in terms of strength, speed, stamina etc. So if the core argument is that the statistical average of a certain group (women) has inferior abilities than another group (men) hence seperation is justified, then why stop there? Why only seperate genders? Why not seperate by population with different abilities? So my counter example was that the IQ of the average European is vastly higher than the average IQ of an African. It's not my own claim, it's what scientific research says. I guess I could have given a more politically correct example though. Like: The average Japanese is 4 inches smaller than the average German. The average male Japanese is smaller than the average German female. Just like there are difference between male and female, there are also vast difference between certain populations. Should Japanese be seperated from playing basketball with Europeans and Americans then? Because logically it's the exact same argument.

Now if titosantill says he doesn't want to see men going into tackles against women that's an acceptable argument. It's an emotional one but it doesn't create logical holes like the "women are weaker and slower so they should only play their own sports but white men being slower than black men and Japanese being midgets compared to Northers Americans/Europeans doesn't matter, running/Basketball shouldn't be seperated according to heritage."

Funny to see the reactions though. Pretty much as expected. On the one hand you've got the typical male reaction: "We're naturally superior, stay away from us". And then you've got the defensive female reaction: "We're naturally weaker so we should be privileged and able to win gold medals in our own competitions instead of possibly winning nothing in mixed sports."

Well, this feels like Futbol is doing some sort of thesis or social experiment. Also, beyond the whole physicality debate, society really has to come to terms with both sexes are equal in every measure which by this thread alone, we clearly don't think so and won't anytime soon (or later).

Now maybe, just very maybe it can work in individual sports like swimming and tennis but I honestly can't see how it would work in team sports. As I can only speak for me, the thought of those knuckle head defenders going in hard on a woman doesn't sit well with me.

I like what futbol's doing here to be honest.

People talking about physical attributes...Doesn't matter if they are physically inferior(they aren't IMO) they should be given equal measure to compete with their opposite sex.

Saying that though it won't happen in my lifetime.

Come on, women are physically inferior, I don't think anyone's contesting that.

Futbol, your logic is actually fairly sound, but you haven't addressed what IMO are the biggest issues with this.

1. As ES said, waaaay too many social and cultural issues for this to happen, sexual harassment would (sadly) be a daily occurrence.

2. This would likely drive women out of football. Take Sinclair for example. Would she rather be recognized as one of the best players in the world (albeit in a sport not really taken seriously) or play in some Swedish 3rd division and be harassed daily? I'd say 99% of female players would pick the former. Bam, football is now a single gender sport.

Physical strength isn't just about the size of your muscles. It's about everything. Speed, acceleration, withstanding tackles/pushing, jumping, shooting speed, passing(!) speed and all that.
Men have a huge advantage over women. We're not just talking about 5% or something like that and football is a sport where even people who play in the 3rd divison are professionals. I know it's funny to talk about your average player playing in the PL or any other league as "scrub" or something like that but matter of fact is that these players are the absolute best. Not the best 1%, but more like the best 0,001% or something like that. And they have a massive physical advantage over the best 0,001% of the women.
Now obviously some super talented women could make it in the mens game and we had a couple of women playing in some leagues (not: teams) but apart from that nothing really would change in the mens game.
Would be almost equal to ending women playing professional football.

zigra wrote:Would be almost equal to ending women playing professional football.

Maybe that's his real intent behind his suggestion?

Regardless of physical dimensions.

According to scientific studies and facts which you seem to ignore, males would simply dominate the sport. Of course, some women would be able to go the extra mile.

However,

As seen from today's sports, physicality is the most important factor in deciding most defensive positions. That's at least six positions guaranteed to men.

Inesita (your example of a physically inferior player) wouldn't cut it as a defensive player.

With over half of the team dominated by men, you then have to let the women compete for the other 5 spots.

Which brings us to issues on stamina and maximum speed.

Simply put, males can reach a higher stamina and speed level. Hence, Ineista and similar players are able to reach higher stamina levels than female player. In fact, if you look at both the playing speed and physical distance covered between male and female matches, you would see a clear difference. Sometimes reaching to 3 kilometers.

Hence, at the same speed the game is played now, a male Ineista would always be preferred over a female Ineista (exact physical dimensions and skill) because the male Ineista would have higher stamina.

Finally, you ignore the facts that bone structure and walking animations are different between genders. This actually leads to more possible injuries for women than men. Especially if they are now going to deal with male defenders.

In conclusion, only the very top of female athletes would get a chance at high level football. Even then, the fact the only few would be looked at would mean teams would not bother looking for them at all, unless for publicity stunts.

All of this while ignoring all the sociocultural issues.

TLDR.

Your idea is literally full of shit. And the fact that you then look at responses and laugh it them makes it even worse.

As for your anti-argument regarding Ineista and Ibra:

-Its not about physical dimensions, it about stamina, speed, and skill. Ibra will tire himself more because of his weight, which then gives an advantage to players like Ineista. So its a balance between males competing in the same balance triangle.
If you have a larger Ineista (without losing any attributes), that would be the more attractive option.

As for separation with race:

-White male runners are still faster than black female runners on average. Race does play a part in individual and focused sports like running. However, in team sports that require a lot of different attributes, its all about balance.

Balance that again is weighted in the male's favor.

TLDR2

You can theoretically kill women's football and merge it with men. However, due to the natural physical (strength, stamina, reflex, size, bone structure, speed) advantage of men, you would end up killing the female footballer because she would be competing with unfair terms.

Lord Spencer wrote:Regardless of physical dimensions.

According to scientific studies and facts which you seem to ignore, males would simply dominate the sport. Of course, some women would be able to go the extra mile.

Care to point me to those studies and scientific facts?

Lord Spencer wrote:

However,

As seen from today's sports, physicality is the most important factor in deciding most defensive positions. That's at least six positions guaranteed to men.

Yeah? Have you seen the leftback of the current CL holders?



Bet no female athlete can compete with that.

Lord Spencer wrote:
Inesita (your example of a physically inferior player) wouldn't cut it as a defensive player.

I'll ask again. Have you seen the leftback of the current CL holders?

Lord Spencer wrote:

With over half of the team dominated by men, you then have to let the women compete for the other 5 spots.

Not really. I'll accept that argument for centerbacks. Other than that fullbacks can evidently have Jordi Alba's physique.

Lord Spencer wrote:

Which brings us to issues on stamina and maximum speed.

Simply put, males can reach a higher stamina and speed level. Hence, Ineista and similar players are able to reach higher stamina levels than female player. In fact, if you look at both the playing speed and physical distance covered between male and female matches, you would see a clear difference. Sometimes reaching to 3 kilometers.

There is no issue on stamina and maximum speed. Speed is irrelevant to succeed in football. Players like Alonso and Fabregas say hi. The difference between top male 100 m runners and female 100 m runners is about 1 second. Top 50 fastest 100 m men are clocked between 9.58 - 9.93 seconds. Females: 10.49 - 10.91 seconds. Being 1 second slower over 100 meters is irrelevant for football. The male population itself varies within a bigger range (Bale vs. Alonso). If you are about 13 seconds over 100 m fast, you're fine for football. That's what girls have to do in Germany to get an A if they have selected sports for their final secondary-school examinations and we're not talking about professional and trained athletes here. It's school girls.

Same goes for stamina. 10 km over 90 minutes every woman can do with the proper training. If the current female footballer averages 3 km it's because the sport is amateur-ish right now, not because that's the limit for women. I bet men's football 50 years ago was also much slower.

Lord Spencer wrote:

Your idea is literally full of shit. And the fact that you then look at responses and laugh it them makes it even worse.

Yet you haven't come up with any logical response bar the equivalent of "Stoke vs. Barca on a cold night" argument which leads to your semi-aggressive "full of shit" response which in fairness is another typical reaction for people who have their world view contested and can't logically defend it. "There are studies ..." Yeah? There are studies that prove with absolute certainty that it's physically impossible for 11 women to play a highly technical game based on touch, passing and intelligence which could dominate a physical men's team like Stoke? That's physically impossible because females are 1 second slower over 100 meters and 3 minutes slower over 10 km?

I bet the vast difference in quality between male and female football right now has more to do with the fact that male football has some 60 year advantage (first male WC 1930, female 1991) over female football more than speed, stamina and strength differences between the genders. While the very top will always be dominated by men, the difference shouldn't be as big as it is right now where an U16 male team dominates the female World Cup winning team in a training game. There is a difference but the difference is never that huge even in much more athletic sports like 100 m sprinting which is 100 % about physicality unlike football which is also about intelligence and technique and tactics.

futbol wrote:

Forza wrote:Futbol, that's just straight up racist.

RWO, don't bother attempting to conduct a civilised discussion here with futbol about the existence of some sort of mythical 'intelligence gene' that he knows about, despite the world's scientific community being unaware of its existence.

Any analogy to genes that are determinative of gender, height, skin colour, hormone production, likelihood of developing disease, etc. is complete folly because, unlike the 'intelligence gene', these genes have been scientifically proven to exist. There is no proof of a gene that determines intelligence and it follows that there is no proof that the effects of this imaginary intelligence gene are associated with a person's race.

I haven't said anything about "intelligence gene". Even though, now that you contest it and force me to research about it, intelligence does very much seem to have a genetic component according to various scientific data: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n6/full/5201588a.html (Nature Journal, hardly some obscure racist plattform). It was just an example.

When you state that 1 race is genetically more intelligent than another, you are impliedly stating that there is a gene or genes causing that disparity in intelligence.

As for the European Journal of Human Genetics study you quoted, "No genome-wide direct association study for IQ has yet appeared." Pls. I used to be in medical research (although genetics wasn't my field).

Why would I imply that? When I say "Brazilians are more successful footballers than Chinese", do I also automatically imply that there is a "football gene"?

If you used to be in medical research, you should be capable of completely reading such a paper and not skipping to one aspect.

Researchers have previously shown that a person’s IQ is highly influenced by genetic factors, and have even identified certain genes that play a role. They’ve also shown that performance in school has genetic factors. But it’s been unclear whether the same genes that influence IQ also influence grades and test scores.

In the new study, researchers at King’s College London turned to a cohort of more than 11,000 pairs of both identical and nonidentical twins born in the United Kingdom between 1994 and 1996. Rather than focus solely on IQ, as many previous studies had, the scientists analyzed 83 different traits, which had been reported on questionnaires that the twins, at age 16, and their parents filled out. The traits ranged from measures of health and overall happiness to ratings of how much each teen liked school and how hard they worked. Then, the researchers collected data on how well each individual scored on the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) exam, an exam that all students in the United Kingdom must take and which is used for admission to advanced classes or colleges.

The team found nine general groups of traits that were all highly hereditary—the identical twins were more likely to share the traits than nonidentical twins—and also correlated with performance on the GCSE. Not only were traits other than intelligence correlated with GCSE scores, but these other traits also explained more than half of the total genetic basis for the test scores.

In all, about 62% of the individual differences in academic achievement—at least when it came to GCSE scores—could be attributed to genetic factors, a number similar to previous studies’ findings, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

-sciencemag

When you say that Africans are inherently less intelligent than Europeans, the obvious implication is that you think one race is genetically superior to the other. If you can provide a non-racist clarification for this statement, I'd like to hear it.

I read the whole paper. There's nothing in that paper associating intelligence with anything other than the intelligence of a child's parents - and even then, it's not yet known whether this association has any genetic basis. There is certainly no statement in that extract you quoted or the rest of the paper associating intelligence with race.

Why do you keep saying I "implied" this and that? Here is my original statement:

futbol wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Because the research shows quite conclusively that men are stronger, have better endurance, are faster, etc? We're talking about athletics, not chess. You need to be able to have both athletism and skill to survive in professional football, and while there are cases like say Montolivo who are quite frail but managed to survive on skill alone.

Like I said, I think some women could. The option should be available to them. But I would still have a female only league available, because most of them would not be able to make it at the "men's + some women" leagues.

Researches also show that Europeans have a vastly higher IQ than Africans.

Where do you read anything about "genes" there?

Here is the "researches" I'm refering to: http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf

Relevant tables are on pages 357 and 359.

BC says: "Research says men > women, hence seperation makes sense".
I make an analogy to show why I don't agree with his statement and say: "Research also says European IQ > African IQ, so should we forbid scientist groups from Africa to work together with scientists from Europe?"

All the details of WHY Africans apparently score so much lower in IQ tests is irrelevant and not key for the discussion here. For my point only the end result matters (different populations with different IQs).

If you have further questions, ask the researchers, not me.

This thread is the epitome why PC is killing the world, SMH.

This is ridiculous.. There isn't a single female footballer that would survive one season in a mens league that people actually care about ffs

Touch football has mixed, mens and womens categories at every level, including international level

Futbol, your argument about Europeans having a better IQ than Blacks is simply a fallacy propagated by white supermascist. Every human beings have similar brain capacity and their intelligence varies according to their growth and surrounding.