Why Should girls be alowed on boys sports teams???

omg i am unlucky stars friend kirstyn, and you both seem like losers and shouldnt be on this site just to diss eachother, get a life losers!! omg we achually need help we are debating boys in our class and they are really smart, WE NEED HELP so stop fighting! JESUS!

Well, somebody has to be the voice of reason here. Not that I want to do your homework for you, but I'll offer some thoughts. I don't see a problem with mixed-sex sports at the school level, provided there is intelligent and sensitive coaching in place, and the ground rules regarding aggression are clearly layed out. Boys and girls participating in sport together can learn from each other, as they use different tactics. Boys tend to be more 'in your face' and girls tend to be more clever and subtle. The gains from this kind of social interaction seem to me to not be a bad thing at all. This question is clearly not about professional sports. Just my

So cav, what about those boys who are not talented at sport, and stop participating altogether because they don't want to be beaten by girls? Do we just forget about the needs of half the boys because of a genetic shortcoming in sports. Knowing that the US (I'd imagine Canada is similar) already has one of the highest levels of child obesity in the world, isn't more important to set policies that get ALL children to participate. For those who aren't going to be champions, it's got to be fun.

Please clarify. What is the difference between being outsmarted by a member of the opposite sex? As for getting all children to participate, yes, I agree. Did you read my original post? I think it's a great idea, and I think that school sports should be mixed sex.

I happened to be one of those boys who were not 'sports-oriented'. I made a lot of friends who were equally challenged. We made a habit of getting tagged in dodgeball, just so we could sit on the bench and make fun of the jocks.

cav, Wilso has point. We can all go bla-bla-ing that it shouldn't be like that, but it is. Kids HAVE to participate in sports as much as they can, and maybe they can play together on lower levels in team sports, but only in team sports and if all teams are mixed.
If you make a boy run against girls and he cames last, he will never run again. Because all other guys will tease him a lot. And it's ALWAYS going to be like that. ALWAYS. And, as Wilso said, kids have to be in sports.

And with team sports it's another problem. On really low levels, yeah, okay, why not. But on any competitive level (not just professional!) - no. Because "unisex" teams in competitive level will without any doubt lead to situation where there will be 95% of male athletes. Few girls will be able to compete, other will be left out. Because, on competitive level you can't come out with opinions like "oh, let's just all have fun". No, sorry. There is five in basketball team, and seven on bench. We cannot make basketball team of 35 players on court and 70 on bench so that we can all have fun.

And, despite blindness of die hard feminists, men simply ARE much better in most sports. So, if there is excellent girl hockey player and there is only male hockey team in her school, then, okay, let her try. But if there is female hockey team, why? I don't see a single reason for it.
And I don't know how it is in USA, but in Croatia in all schools there are sports with both male and female teams - every school has basketball, volleyball, team handball, track&field, gymnastics, table tennis - most of them have rowing and tennis as well - and all of these sports have female teams.

MOU, What would happen if a girl wanted to try out for a boy's hockey team even if there was a girl's team because she was better than all of the girls? In your opinion, would you let her only id she was better than all the rest? (If you say yes, i agree.)

I don't know. As I said, it's very touchy subject. And it's a bit unfair. Because, if she can play hockey in her competition why should be allowed to play with guys, and some guy that really likes hockey but is not good enough for male team sholdn't be allowed to play in female team then? And then we are again in "unisex" situation that is actually the most unfair thing that can happen to girls.

Exception is high professional level. I doubt that girl can earn a lot of money in women hockey at this moment. So, if she wants it to be her career and she can eventually play in NHL, then it is kinda different, because it's highly professional level with lot of money involved. If I am wrong and there is professional female league with decent money then I wouldn't allow her (I mean - that's my opinion).

And, as for being better then all the rest...Williams sisters and belgian duet Clijster-Henin are much much better then all other tennis players, but they are still not playing with guys. But, also they do get same or almost same money guys get.

Girls should be allowed to play with boys in baseball.
Girls should be allowed to play with boys in baseball because if they were friends they would want to be on the same team.

FISHIN'- First of all, the girls and women are not being denied the opportunity to play, they have girls leagues for that and the last time I checked they have Co-Ed leagues. you said :

"Maybe Marion Jones wouldn't be at the top of the pile. So what? (And when did Marion Jones become a "team"?) Should every 5 year old female be denied the opportunity to play soccer, basketball, baseball, bowling, volleyball, etc.. against males that are just as lousy at it as they are? "

These co eds leagues are very lousy, so I don't know what your'e complaining about. When it comes to professional athletes, only a small percentage of women would want to play against men because they realize they would be simply overmatched. If you want a professional Co-Ed league full of lousy men in it so the women can tell themselves that they beat a man (a lousy one) then you should pursue that idea, tell me how many people are interested.

UNLUCKYSTAR- For you to say that the girl hockey player who is better than all of her female counterparts should play with males is hilarious to hear from a feminist. That statement only gives the message that you are admitting the fact that males are better. Now, what if someone like....Shaquille O'Neal, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong...(the list goes on) wanted to cross over onto the professional female league of their sport because they're better than everyone else? It would be simply absurd and I'm sure you'll agree with that. They do not create female leagues as a stepping stone for the elite female athletes to propel themselves onto the male sports scene. They are there so women can have a league of thier own, something they can call theirs, just like the men have and want. If basketball started letting the WNBA's top players play in the NBA the WNBA's players wouldn't seem so good anymore. Why would women want their showcase athletes to be seen as inferior to even the mediocre male athletes? This would just make other people ignore them altogether when they tried to say that girls are just as good as boys in sports. I'm sorry but that just isn't the truth, as much as we wish it was, it isn't.

hm, and too support it a bit with real results:

Swimming, 100 meters freestyle, official Olympics results:

Best semifinal time in female competition:

Jodie Henry (Australia) 53.52 - NEW WORLD RECORD

She would be placed 58th in male competition:

Male Results

Female Results

The questions of whether or not girls (boys) should be allowed to play on a boys (girls) team are special cases of more general questions:
Should a competitor (let's not limit this to athletics) be allowed to compete in a higher (lower) "class" than they naturally qualify for?

I propose the following, for which there are numerous supporting examples:

Definitions:
1) Class: A subset of the whole population whose members share one or more common attributes (age, gender, height, weight, etc.).
2) Weaker/Stronger: Class A is weaker (stronger) than class B if for the vast majority of its members, their percentile ranking within the class would be (perhaps I should say significantly) lowered (raised) if they competed in class B.

Propositions:
1) If class A is weaker than class B, then no member of class B shall be allowed to compete in class A.
Members of weaker classes need to be "protected" against forced exposure to members of stronger classes. It's not fair to step down a level to dominate.
2) If class A is weaker than class B, then any member of class A who can compete effectively against members of class B shall be allowed to compete in class B.
Strong members of weaker classes need an opportunity to compete against their "skill-level" peers. If they have no (or few) peers in their natural class, they should be allowed to move up in class.

Notice that neither proposition references gender, and therefore, makes no assumptions about males being better than females. Nor do they assume that the competition is athletic in nature.

Examples:
Youth soccer (U6, U8, U10, etc.): Classes are determined by age. Younger kids are protected from competing against older kids. Really good kids can move up.
Men's golf: Classes are determined by age. Seniors are protected from the younger pros, but they can compete on the regular tour.
Boxing and wrestling: Classes are determined by weight. A heavyweight cannot compete for the middleweight crown, but a middleweight can compete for the heavyweight crown.
Basketball: I believe I've heard of "under six foot" leagues. It wouldn't make sense to allow a seven footer to compete, but look at how Spud Webb performed in the NBA.

For the specific case in question, I say let the girls who are good enough play with the boys. The boys who get beat by girls are also getting beat by just about every other boy. They always get picked last, and they drop out of athletics anyway. We have PE in school to ensure that all kids are getting at least some minimal amount of physical exercise.

true, but NBA is not "over six foot league". NBA has no limits, and that's it.

And those are, generally, two different leagues/competitions/classes, made by genders, not necessarily by quality. So, if you have W-NBA, then it's just normal to have M-NBA. And if you make unisex leagues, as few of us said, it's going to be disaster for girls, because very very few of them can compete.
I left swimming result above, and in athletics, winner of female 100meters would be placed 48th in male competition.

I'm not suggesting creating unisex leagues - at least not at the expense of the weaker league. I'm merely saying that if a woman can be competitive with men, then let her play with men. I'm also not suggesting that there is (or is not) a woman in any sport that is in a position to do that. But, when the situation arises, give her a shot.
I have no doubt that if the NFL or NBA had open tryouts for women, none would make it onto a team. Just like no woman today is going to be competitive against men in swimming (your example). That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the opportunity is provided. Some day in some sport (like archery or curling) the best woman is going to be very competitive with men. When that day comes, let her compete against men.

Many here seem to look at a sports team as having players equally talented or fit for all roles. In basketball, point guards and centers have different functions on the team.

Some women could be point guards at least at the local level on a mixed gender team, in my opinion. My only backup is that I used to watch mixed gender pickup basketball games and scheduled male under-six foot games at Venice Beach. At that time the scheduled tourneys didn't have mixed gender games, that I remember, but it seems like it would be a fun thing to schedule. Since I don't live there any more, I don't know if they schedule them now.

I always liked watching the under six foot games, as the players seemed to rely more on strategy and accuracy than heft.

I don't get the concern about a young fellow being beaten in something by a young girl. There is a macho fear thing going on there that I think is downright silly. Do we worry about that with toddlers playing tiddlywinks, or whatever games toddlers play in preschool now? Among billions of people there is a wide range of athletic aptitude. Sexual segregation being the rule is very restrictive.

I agree with Cav that teamwork is itself an important goal in the playing of sports in general, and think it is too limiting to think of sports only as the realm of superior players.

osso - you are right in many things, but, at least in part of discussion I participated in, I was talking mainly about professional level of sports. Of course, sport IS and always MUST BE much more then that, but I don't think issue here is weather girls and boys should play together, let's say, street soccer or touch football or street basketball. On that level - yes, I don't think anything wrong in girls and boys having fun together while playing sports.

Sexual segregation is problem, but not in professional sports I think. (here's also part for markr). Because only way not to have sexual discrimination on higher levels of sport is to have some kind of unisex leagues or teams. And that would be worst thing for females - because, it's kind of sexual discrimination if society would allow extremely talented girl to play NBA, but would disallow male talented more then enough to play WNBA (but not talented enough to be in NBA) to fullfill his dream to be professional basketball player. And if same society would have basketball league without any sexual preference (so, no WNBA as well), then 99% of players in that league would be of male gender.

Markr, I understand your point about opportunity, I just don't see reason for that opportunity - with one addition - in those sports where there ARE female leagues or competitions. If there is NBA and WNBA I don't see why any woman would play in NBA.

I have to go into work for a bit, but want to think about that some more. I don't want to stop the existence of unisex teams, as such (I don't think so, right this minute.) I'd like to widen the range of mixed gender teams, especially in sports where tactics are key in contrast to size/power. Which, I don't know, am just thinking about it.

Sexual discrimination or not, I'd let a qualified woman play with men just like a qualified member of the senior tour can play in a regular PGA tournament, or a qualified U16 soccer player can play U18. At the highest level (PGA, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.), it should be open to all who are good enough. At the lower levels (LPGA, WNBA, etc.), restrictions are fine because they allow another class of athlete to compete. If there were a sport that women dominated I'd be in favor of letting males try out for the women's league, but not letting women play in a more restrictive men's league.

Why would a woman want to play in the NBA if there is a WNBA? Because she is too good for the WNBA and good enough for the NBA (hypothetically).

Yeh, I agree..on more thought. I judge a lot of things by performance criteria in my work life; for example, in land use and zoning.. so what markr says re elite sports makes sense on that.

But this thread got me started on the idea of mixed teams for, you know, the sport of it. Everybody isn't equal in weight or power or agility or hand eye coordination or analytic ability for tactics, in one game or the season. Power is only one component. Gender mix could be amusing past the game before the neighborhood barbeque. I suppose guys would think this is a way to make a sport lightweight and kind of emasculating, so I could foresee resistance.

What we have now is people marathoning together and, yes, some women drafting from male runners. Still, some women aren't far behind the top men, as we all know.

What am I looking for, a situation where a woman joining in a sport could be considered additive, and not a drag factor... and that would probably be in tactics or agility..