Not mine but sooooo satisfying

But let’s not question his overall qualifications. I have no reason to. The point is that none of what he said qualifies him to say definitively we need gendered leagues. That’s a conclusion he made as an opinion based in part in biological truths. We could just as easily group leagues based on performance ability- some sort of qualification test and adjustments based on seasonal performance etc.

The CURRENT models for sports as a media and cash giant certainly benefit from gendered leagues. It’s also a very easy way to group athletes. But there is a fundamental flaw with that method.

A common discussion point when it comes to things like inequality in pay between female and male pro athletes is that female sports generally make less money- so an equal percent of less money to more money will be... less. Let’s not get into the other factors one might argue against that and just take that as a general truth. Ok. But with female athletes playing in a desperate league- and the known biological fact that women’s leagues in general can’t match the performance of men’s leagues in objective metrics- we know that it is a forgone conclusion that all things being equal people will gravitate to the league which has the higher caliber of play and more dynamic feats- which this establishes will be the men’s league by default.

In other words- gendered leagues are already, by their principal of separating women who “cant compete in the level of men,” creating a second string league. What’s more- with time and money as limited factors, one must choose which sports to purchase merchandise and games for, which games to watch at all etc. few people follow ALL sports but most people who follow one sport tend to follow several.

Now- running men’s and women’s seasons concurrently means that the viewers for a given sport (let’s say basketball,) will likely gravitate to an established favorite/franchise and skip the other. So likely they’ll watch the men’s version. You could stagger the seasons- but then you have a good portion of your audience who just watched last seasons sport championship and are satisfied and ready to move on to the next seasons sport- leaving the women’s league once again in the lurch.

Regulations of sports could possibly help this. It should be no secret that most of your favorite pro athletes are on some kind of gear. “They test..” “so and so would never...” yes. Yes they would. Billions in the line, multi millions for the athlete- the all consuming drive to win? You think evolution works that fast and suddenly a 300+ lb human who is mostly muscle just pops out of the ground? “Scandal” in sports is like scandal in politics. The “scandal” is someone got caught doing what everyone else has been doing.

Steroids and HGH are widely known- but most people don’t know the HUGE amounts of compounds you can use for an edge- and stack. Used right, insulin, fertility drugs, heart meds, stimulants, and any number of other compounds can help increase performance. You don’t have to hit the field doped either. Dope while you train, gain, stop. You can keep what you worked for and piss clean.

Operators are accused of doing the same. Though in their case, it's probably more a matter of surviving than cheating...

My point is this- no natural human is going to be able to compete against guys running the best chemistry multimillions can buy. And women both can’t handle the size superclinical doses men can of lots of that junk- which is also generally tailored to men’s biology, and knowledge of administration mostly exists for men- and they don’t respond as well as men in general.

You put a woman on gear the way you’d cycle a man and if you don’t kill her or turn her into a wreck- mr magoo could tell she was on shit from a mile away. It’s much easier due to culture and biology for men to hide it. McGuire and his buddies hands and heads grew 6 sizes at the age that only happens if they’re about to name a disease after you- and it took a congressional hearing and nation wide investigation to get most people to admit they were on HGH.

When XYZ Hollywood hunk goes from 90lbs or 220 all fat to being jacked and ripped in 6 months or less- we all nod and say “oh yeah. They have trainers.” Yeah... that’s part of it. And so are the chemicals. A PERFECT human on a PERFECT diet and recovery can make about 2.5 lbs of muscle... A MONTH. You can loose about 2.5lbs of fat a week. At a 1,000 calorie deficit. Gaining muscle takes calories. Losing weight and gaining muscle IS possible. You won’t gain as much as you could in muscle or lose as much in fat- but you can. Not gain 20lbs+ of muscle and loose 30+lbs of fat at once in 6 months.

So we close our eyes and plug our ears when male athletes and actors use “help” from a bottle or syringe. We WANT to believe them so we do. We like the results. The people with billions toed up on them also want us to believe. Hell- even the people in power want us to believe because the truth would scuttle major economic engines and all the halo industries that they feed. It’s not just influencers and CEOs that lose- it’s retail workers and ticket takers and everyone else.

But if we take the drugs out of sports- or make allowances for women- the picture changes a bit. In fact- simply testing for hormone levels periodically and randomly and classifying leagues off those metrics and a scale based on other factors would go a long way.

Of course.... you won’t get drugs out of sports and you won’t ever get honest testing. The regulatory agencies are caught up in the money and politics too. Their bread is buttered a certain way and only the “scandals” that need to get through make it- save the ones that they have to act in because they’re plain as day and would lose all credibility otherwise.

So in the end, and TL:dr- it isn’t that there’s a biological imperative for gendered sports- like any big money enterprise there are monetary reasons as well as cultural reasons (feeding into and off of the monetary ones...) that make it unlikely that any meaningful changes would be made to how the genders are handled in sports any time soon. When you have a license to print money you generally don’t do anything that might jeopardize that- wether it’s in the name of “morality” or “equality” or “social advancement” or anything else that is “noble” or “progressive.”

It’s funny how many people are bad mouthing the NBA or esports leagues for their stances on The HK protests or “catering to China.” LOL. REALLY? You do realize that is what they do don’t you? Last week they were doing it to males in the target demo at home. This week it’s China. Most people who are upset these leagues would put money ahead of “right” are delusional hypocrites. They didn’t want to integrate races until the money was in danger. They didn’t want to let women play at all until they had to. They don’t want gender integration or parity between leagues either because... MONEY.

Put the focus on the WNBA and getting it to generate more money over the NBA and.... you’ll lose money. Short term for sure. Long term likely. Put the focus of the game on fair and natural play and... you’ll lose money. But so many people, even ones I’ve seen on this board, defend the non parity between men’s and women’s sports but have lashed out over the Perceived bowing to China. So many who cursed a man for taking a knee support HK in its revolution.

What do these seemingly similar principals but different reactions say? They tell us peoples place in our society. It seems a lot of people aren’t too fond of parity for women or for rights to show their political beliefs but they don’t dislike those things as much as they dislike China. It becomes not an ethical or philosophical issue but an issue of who people are most biased against I suppose.

Brother, there's a slight difference between preferring more dynamic athletes and condoning blatant mass killings and enslavement.

There is. But when we discuss PRINCIPAL- the difference is what degree of “wrong” we are willing to condone as acceptable. Silencing people, treating some as lesser than others as is inherent to their birth or circumstance, etc- in PRINCIPAL these things are what they are. The mechanisms are the same- even if one is exercised to more extremes than another. A killer and a serial killer are different in scale- but to each individual effected by their crime the loss of a loved one is the same. Both are criminals- and so is the person who steals. Stealing obviously isn’t as severe as murder or mass murder.

But it is a crime. A lesser crime- but still one that society and people in general agree isn’t tolerable. One people try to stop or call out when they see- one most people won’t be a party to. So both Murder and theft are crimes. Wether a person steals a car or kills a man we don’t say: “well of course no one got mad he killed a guy. This guy killed 12!”

Tl:dr- a concept most children learn at an early age is that it doesn’t matter who did wrong first, or who did what that was “worse.” Severity of wrong influences punishment but it does not influence wether it should be condoned. If a man steals your lap top-from your golf Monday and another steals your gameboy from your home Sunday- you wouldn’t just stand by or excuse him because the laptop is a larger crime would you?

So tell us how you really feel about this.