Main Edition
US
FR
December 4, 2023 - 2:35pm
A friend of mine has a theory that men only created sports in order to feel physically superior to women. We might be better at living longer and creating new humans, but they’re better at running fast, jumping over poles and flinging balls around.
What about playing pool, though? Are male people at an advantage there, too? According to the authors of a new petition, they are. Supported by Fair Play for Women, a group of female pool players is asking that entry to women’s tournaments be restricted to those who are female-bodied. Naturally, the question many are asking in response is “but does it really make a difference?” Well, yes. It does.
One of the worst things about the debate over trans inclusion in sports is that it forces women to state the bleeding obvious. In order to maintain any categories of their own, women are forced to explain, again and again, why it is not fair to make them compete against male people. Instead of being allowed to celebrate female exceptionality, they are forced to declare themselves smaller, weaker, slower than men. More often than not, they will then see themselves accused of having declared women to be all-round inferior physical specimens.
The whole thing is enraging, not just because it enforces, once again, the lie that male bodies are the default against which we must all measure ourselves, albeit only in categories pre-selected by men themselves. It’s enraging because even if male pool players were not advantaged by greater upper body strength, greater height, larger hand size and longer reach — and they are — their demanding entry to female categories would remain grossly unfair.
After all, if there were no physical advantage for males, why have separate categories for men and women at all? If all bodies were equal in size and strength, who would benefit from maintaining woman-only tournaments?
The answer depends, of course, on how one is defining the word “woman”. If one is thinking of female people, one could maintain separate events out of respect for the historic exclusion women have endured, not to mention the lingering prejudice women face as “impostors” in spheres men once claimed as their own. This is something the petition’s authors allude to when they mention “social factors”.
If, on the other hand, one is thinking of “woman” as a gender identity, then one is essentially creating a “feminine” version of “normal” sports. This is an insult to the courageous, gender non-conforming women who fought for their sex to have its own sports in the first place. It is asking that every time a female player enters a contest, she implicitly pledges allegiance to beliefs about what women are which have nothing whatsoever to do with female bodies and legacies, and everything to do with the social stereotypes which have seen sportswomen sidelined, belittled and denied respect as exceptional people.
As Sharron Davies writes in Unfair Play, “women’s sport grew thanks to female athletes and coaches, strong mothers, members of women’s rights groups and sports organisations, who had to fight long and hard every step, stride, stroke, pull, push and throw of the way to achieve equality”. It grew precisely because women refused to accept the conflation of sex and gender which insisted female people were too “feminine” to engage in sports at all. Female sportspeople aren’t entering women’s categories in order to perform femininity. On the contrary, they’re pushing femininity aside.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeObviously a radical feminist couldn’t countenance the idea that men engaged in competition and sport for their own amusement and satisfaction. It had to be a means to repress women.
The Author’s pieces are tiresome. Instead on concentrating on the trans mind virus and bringing people on board to its unfairness and stupidity, she uses every opportunity to attack men.
Every poll taken has shown that men are significantly more against men competing in women’s sports than the women surveyed. It’s not the Patriarchy pulling the strings behind trans ideology.
If the Author got over her man hatred she might have a valuable contribution to make against trans idiocy. But as it is, she is bitter and divisive voice.
Well said. Furthermore, there is a Washington Post, if I remember correctly, article showing polling data where majority of feminists support trans causes. Would like to see feminist writers for Unherd respond to that article and data.
Agreed. It seems to be a generational divide. I wish Unherd would open the debate a bit. Kathleen Stock is good, but most of the rest on this topic are just old ranters. Some of the UTIs lap it up, but for the rest of us it’s boring and repetitive.
This one doesn’t…
Thank you. I would go further and suggest that men engage in sport to get away from women and inhabit for a short time a positive male atmosphere of competition and skill before going back into the constant competitive victimhood coming from some of the female population.
There are quite a lot of us who would also welcome getting away from womyn.
I can imagine. At least they don’t pretend to speak on our behalf. It must be irritating seeing opinions you disagree with being presented as women’s collective opinion on any issue.
My wife would completely agree with you. She complains mainly about other women. Whenever she complains about men, it is either the same old mindless trope or how women turn into giggly girls around men.
Totally. Laced with resentment and bitterness. Though I think you are wrong on radical feminism and the trans thing. It’s the hatred of men that is fundamental – the anti trans thing is just it’s latest manifestation. It’s the maleness of “trans women” that drives them up the wall, not their supposed femaleness.
I think that her point is that women should have their own sports category but that they need men to organize it for them
Well, quite. From this:
More often than not, they will then see themselves accused of having declared women to be all-round inferior physical specimens.
The hyperlink leads to some deranged wing-nut trans activist ranting on X about TERFS. If that’s ‘more often than not’ then I’m Fatima Whitbread and anyone who disagrees is a genocidal BIGOT. To be more serious, this is a very badly written piece that goes out of its way to alienate men who find the idea of other blokes barging into women’s sports (or indeed anywhere else such as changing rooms) absolutely abhorrent.
My own pet theory is that sport allows for competition and shows of strength that avoid violence and the risk of injury.
I’m afraid feminists just can’t help themselves. No matter how much it might be in their interests to ally with men on specific issues, that hatred and resentment just comes seething through.
Completely agree Marcus.
Women complained their way into male spaces. Now the worst men are doing the same back to women. We need to respect boundaries and the fact that we don’t always have to be allowed into every space.
It all boils down to respecting the word “No”
Some men demand their right to enter female spaces by declaring themselves to be women. Women did not “complain their way” into male spaces by declaring themselves to be men.
That is true. Women were a lot more honest and upfront about it for sure. Still, what was wrong about male only spaces in the first place?
If the argument is equality when it suits you and flourishing in your own spaces when it suits you then you might have to allow that the principles should apply to men too.
Fine to create special categories for different types of humans to compete against that same kind of human.
Just let’s not pretend they’re equal. This business of pushing women’s sports on audiences aggressively (if you don’t watch the Women’s World Cup, it’s because you’re a sexist pig) is abhorrent. People want to see ‘the best’, not ‘the best in category’.
Actually, you are right : they are not equal. Take beach volleyball : I had to check on Google to confirm that there is such a thing as men’s beach volleyball! Who would have thought it…….
…very wise of you John,
Top Gun?
I don’t watch men’s sport or women’s sport. I find both incredibly boring.
How incredibly superior of you.
Thanks for telling us so we may stand and doff our caps when you pass by.
Actually I totally agree with Janet. I never watch sport, I don’t enjoy sport, so why should I? Afew weeks ago one of I was talking to one of my neighbours who professed to be appalled that I would not be watching ‘the rugby’ that night.
He was unable to explain, however, why he would not be watching ‘Last Night of the Proms’.
Pool tables are so tiny that it’s hard to imagine that the player’s height, reach, hand size or strength has any bearing on ability. Still, if women want a competition category that is limited to those who are physically female, why not?
The differences are most likely down to male’s average superior visual spatial ability
THAT’s the right answer – coupled with hand-eye coordination (though women in average have better digital dexterity).
Doesn’t seem to give men the advantage in eventing or show jumping. These are challenging sports – at events like Badminton the cross-country course is 4miles over very stiff fences yet these sports have been mixed for seventy years that I know of. To my knowledge nobody has ever suggested that it should be otherwise and there were/are no apparent animosities based on gender. Moreover, women have been frequent winners. Racing has been somewhat different because it is an area where strength to weight ratios can be a problem, but in 2021 Rachael Blackmore won the Grand National and the Champion Hurdle. In 2022 she won the Cheltenham Gold Cup.
Hand size matters. Also height. There are many shots where I have to use a mechanical bridge — and my father and brother did not — because they can lean over the table, and curl their hand around and over a badly placed ball — but I cannot.
Just wondering what the heights of the tallest and shortest men to win the snooker world championship are.
I have found the answer to my question: tallest Steve Davis – 6 foot 2 inches; shortest Graham Dott – 5 foot 5 inches.
Is Mr Dott shorter than the little Belgian chappie who os the current champion? He’s a very short snooker player indeed.
It also seems that Reardon, Davis, Trump, Hendry, Williams, O’Reardon and Selby are all 6” or just over. Must be the optimum height!
Isn’t pool a very male-coded sport though – played by men in pubs, etc.? So having a separate women’s league makes sense if they feel edged out.
Lots of women play pool in pubs. If they don’t like the idea of playing with men around, nothing is stopping them from forming their own club. (If they can keep the transwomen out)
A friend of mine has a theory that women only breast feed in public in order to feel physically superior to men. I’ve suggested he seek the help of a mental health professional. I suggest you do the same for your “friend”.
Men are physically superior to women. That’s what we like about them.
absolutely!
I don’t know any man who envies women breast feeding. Your friend has a strange fetish.
We’re mammals, which means our females breast feed our young. It’s a normal biological function and no normal male finds it erotic.
Sorry William but you didn’t really get my point. Which is exactly that: that no man spends his time thinking that women do things like breast feeding to deliberately make him as a man feel bad.
Only feminists, and other religion of resentment types, think like that.
The majority of people I see supporting the notion that trans-women are women who should be allowed to enter women’s spaces and sports are young, left-wing females.
Despite this, the author of this piece, as usual, blames men for everything.
Her writing reveals her as bitter and angry. It’s no wonder when many of her own sex oppose her.
Thank you for this insightful piece, it’s so obvious to most women and so boring and regressive having to point this out, but your eloquence and humour make a great read.
Yet again the responses below are even more depressing than the depressing discourse. I’m so shocked that the main response seems to be to take offence and whine about ‘man hate’, that isn’t even relevant or true.
Yawn yawn yawn to the lack of understanding and debate. UnHerd is a fantastic platform for writers and pieces like this, but the persistent lack of quality of understanding and reduction of nuance by the commenting readership is embarrassing and alarming.
I hate to point this out Sacha, but pointing out the “obvious” is not generally seen as “insightful”. Nor did I detect much eloquence or humour. I’m afraid it’s just poor writing by someone with a bee in their bonnet.
I’m happy to praise Kathleen Stock, on roughly the same side, on roughly the same debate, because her writing is intelligent and genuinely insightful. Indeed, I’m part way through her book. She also understands the history of her own movement, which is refreshing.
Go away David.
You pathetic Little man.
So much of what is obvious to me and other women completely confuses you. All your responses indicate an intense lack of understanding of most issues involving women.
So I thank authors for pointing out things that are beyond your understanding. You need educating and I’m very aware that the whole concept of your lacking intellect will confuse you more.
Don’t read or comment here if you want to merely insult people who disagree with you. You don’t speak for all women, you speak for yourself.
I’ve just realised how not only are your comments dull but also repetitive.
You lack eloquence and humour.
Get a new hobby David this isn’t improving you at all…
I find these articles a useful reminder that it’s better to seek common cause than an argument if you want to get something done. I’m not convinced by the explanation for why men like sport. But that’s not the important thing in the article. Women deserve their own categories in sport. Full stop.
Haven’t you just been caught by your own arguments that ‘women are equal to men and deserve the same pay, prize money etc’ ? That’s been the mantra all my life but now you want a uturn to keep the privileges on a radically different prospectus
It’s got nothing to do with women being equal to men in terms of strength or technique, and everything to do with being equally entertaining. A top class women’s tennis match (for instance) is every bit as enthralling as would be a men’s match at the top of their game. Entry prices for spectators the same; so should prize money.
Women’s tennis isn’t as entertaining as men’s. Women’s football is hilariously bad. Entertaining yes, but not as intended.
Women’s tennis is absolutely every bit as entertaining, and as i pointed out, since spectators pay the same prices to watch, there is simply no argument against the same prize money.
Your subjective opinions have merit only insofar as it makes you feel entitled to peddle ridicule where none is either necessary or worthwhile.
All opinion is subjective by default and you have no idea what my intention was. Your subjective opinions which you state as fact are no more valid than mine, or anyone else’s. Get over yourself.
I used to play a huge amount of tennis, enough to tell whether the ball was out as soon as it was hit. I only ever watch men’s tennis because the skill level is superior to women’s which makes it far more interesting. My son watches women’s sports but I suspect he does so because he feels he needs to demonstrate he is not at all sexist which could be construed as patronising.
The charges to watch women’s tennis are only the same because the women’s tour is tied to the men’s tour and that is how they price it.
There was real push back form the women’s game when the idea was mooted that the male tour should stage separate events in response to pressure from those lower down the rankings in the men’s game were not earning much of a living
I play tennis at my local club. I demand TV coverage and pay parity
“since spectators pay the same prices to watch”
Or, rather, spectators are either forced to pay the same (in events like Wimbledon which are heavily oversubscribed) or forced to pay a bundled fee.
What black market prices reveal is that women final matches are valued at the same level as men’s quarter finals.
In fact there is hardly any sporting event where women can get away with equal ticket pricing as men. Football, tennis, cricket, basketball, chess, racing….
Imagine though if men were to demand equal pay for working 3/5 as much women, while also being vastly inferior!
It’s your subjective opinion that men’s and women’s tennis is equalling entertaining. Many players and fans value skill and endurance which is more likely to be seen in the longer men’s matches. The argument for the same prize money was not based on entertainment value but on the claim that the women were equally skilled to men.
I, personally, would rephrase your post as follows: Women’s tennis isn’t as fast as men’s. Women’s football is so slow that it is really boring. Women’s cricket is like me playing cricket when I was at school.
I used to watch a 4th division football side – for many years. Top women’s football today is at a similar speed and skill level. Speed is a big part of sport.
The problem is that we are expected to say that everything is fair and equal and so we say it to avoid life’s downticks. Or partners are watching closely and we have to obey for peace and tranquility.
That Division 4 team must’ve been pretty bad. I’m fairly sure any relatively fit semi-pro men’s team would beat the world’s best women’s team.
Sports stars should be paid their fair share of whatever revenues their event generates for the organisers. It shouldn’t be a moral or ideological point: after all if only morality applied, no sports star would be paid more than a carer. Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder; a close match between two mediocre players might be more entertaining than one sided one between the two best ones. Typically sports fans want to watch the best players, not just entertaining matches. In some sports women players may generate as much or more revenue than the men; in other sports, not so much. But the market, not ideology, should decide.
It depends on what kind of tennis you like. It’s subjective. If you like long rallies then the women’s game has merits. But in my opinion part of the attraction of elite level sport is seeing the world’s best practitioners of that sport playing against each other on the biggest stage. Whether that’s the latter stages of Wimbledon, a heavyweight title bout or a Champions League knockout game. Ie, no-one alive today is better than these people. That “these people” in almost all sports are men is not subjective. It’s a fact.
Surely it’s total take that should matter not price. If the total take for women’s tennis is equal to that for men, fine – the reward should be the same.
But that’s not the argument made for women’s football where equal pay claims are based on the idea that they are “doing the same job”, not that they bring in the same amount of money.
You are joking about women’s tennis?
Men’s tennis at the highest level is a supreme test of skill, technique, will and athletic ability.
Women’s tennis is about who can get the ball over the net
Young women appear to support transgender men taking part in female sport. I would suggest that is because they do not know of the difference in physical strength between some men and women. This is because they do not known any tough and fit men.
Sharon Davies ex boy friend was Neil Adams who fought as a light heavy weight in judo and won a silver medal in the Olympics. Davies has pointed out that men have a 10 % advantage in long distance running, a 30 % advantage in sprinting and a 160% advantage in punching power. Women’s skulls and neck mucles are weaker than mens. Fit men can perform one arm pull ups and press ups which demonstrates their upper body strength and boxers condition their stomach muscles by having medicine balls thrown on them.
I would suggest that feminists who have said men and women are equal and therefore equal in punching power and ability to take a blow to the head, have enabled transgender men to argue for inclusion in women’s sports. This is wrong but a result of unintended consequences due to a lack of rigorous scrutiny of the argument for greater involvement of women in public life.
How can anyone even be paid for writing what is essentially common sense? It is no reflection on the author, simply on the times. I find a regular dose of Iain McGilchrist necessary to retain my own sense of what might be going on in the current zeitgeist.
Look at the comments… so many people lack this common sense.
I’m grateful to the author for reiterating why women should have separate categories in sport. Now can she explain why women need a separate category in chess?
A friend of mine has a theory that men only created chess in order to feel intellectually superior to women. Blah blah … moving silly bits of wood around on a board …. Thinking they are kings and knights …. Lording it over the pawns ….. blah blah.
Personally, I do not think this is a “man” issue.
This is an issue about some very very liberal women and the men that support them and some very aggressive and likely mentally ill individuals.
Your not hearing a bunch of straight, old, white guys calling for women to include trans people in their competitions.
AND…sport was NOT developed in response to anything having to do with women. It feeds into the natural need of men to compete, often physically and violently, as a substitute to war. Ask any man what it was like to be a teenager or 20 something and they will likely tell you that it actually felt GOOD to give and take a hit. Just watch the difference between men and women’s soccer at the teen level. Just look at the response of a defender in football who puts a really hard hit on a receiver or quarterback. They got good and bruised too but they love the feel of it.
South Park already addressed this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig
Thanks for the link.
Good Lord, how tedious can a writer be? Feminist authors never cease to amaze with their talent for triviality and tiresomeness. Please just go away.
Yawn!
Why indeed? For sports where the fact that women are, in general, “smaller, weaker, slower than men” is not a factor (e.g. pool, snooker, darts) should they need to compete in separate categories? And, if a few inches of height or reach are such a significant factor, perhaps Peter Crouch should have been banned from playing professional football on the grounds that his 6’7″ height gave him an unfair advantage.
I wonder if Victoria is in favour of sex segregation in other fields where men and women compete or are judged but where physical attributes are also not a factor, e.g. Nobel prizes, the Booker Prize, BRIT awards, and so forth.
I find the presentation and “feminist” approach of the writer less than felicitous myself, however, if you go to the link given in her article at “a new petition” you will find a very detailed and reasoned description of the differences in male and female physique that make it very clear why biological females and males should have separate categories in pool competitions.
So please, let’s not throw the message out because we find the messenger’s attitude abrasive. This battle against a pernicious influence in competitive sports is one that the insightful, of all sexes and persuasions are embracing, and need to do so to its successful conclusion. Many sensible young people will simply give up on their chosen sport, which often already presents them with logistical difficulties, if we don’t.
You make a fair point, in that I hadn’t followed any of the links. However, having now looked at the petition I remain highly sceptical. I mean, physical strength being a factor in the first break, with its effect on how the game then unfolds? Seriously?
Beyond a certain point, the speed at which the cue ball hits the pack will result in balls actually leaving the table, causing the player to be penalised. I just don’t believe that women can’t develop the kind of strength required to maximise the effectiveness of the initial break while keeping all the balls on the table. For me, this is not like, say, lifting weights or hitting a golf ball, where the general differences between male and female strength are truly significant.
And if hand size and reach are so important, why aren’t very tall and/or large-handed men barred from competing against their smaller fellows (hence my tongue-in-cheek reference to Peter Crouch in my original post)?
Lastly, the shoe-horning in of the “pool halls and pub snooker tables continue to be male-dominated” as a justification undermines rather than strengthens the case. This is a social factor, not a biological one, hence irrelevant to this argument in my opinion.
More food for thought: men and women compete on equal terms in horse racing, where it could be argued that a woman’s (generally) lighter weight gives her an unfair advantage over her male counterparts by lightening the load her mount has to carry. Any thoughts?