[PSU213]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Who said anything about restricting it to high school? What are you rambling about? In your post, you cited a third grader. I cited high school students. Are we not allowed to express our opinions using the situations we have knowledge of?

You have obviously missed my point. I was using the third grader as an example of why we cannot take the logic we use for high schoolers and apply it to the lower levels. The point was: just because we both find it acceptable for girls to be on a boy's football or wrestling team at the high school level, that does not mean we should automatically allow girls on the field, court mat, etc. with boy at the grade school level.

You wrote, "The fact is the school did not want her to participate because wrestling involves two participants in skin tight outfits grabbing each other, often times in the groin, and the school felt it was not appropriate for an 8 year old to be engaged in such an activity with the opposite sex and have the school sponsor it." My point is that a high school girl is much more developed than a third grader. Also, the boys are much more developed as well and sexual situations and touching are much more of an issue at that age. There aren't concerns on the high school level, why should there be concerns at the third grade level? This is competition, not groping and petting.

This is probably going to take us places we don't need to go on this debate, but obviously we have different approaches to how we would raise our children. If I had a daughter there is no way I would let her participate in wrestling while at the grade school level, for the reason that they DON'T realize that this is not a sexual situation. The high schoolers can make the distinction, and that makes all the difference. I'd whip out the Ed. Psych, but that would be way too long.

When children are too young to make an informed decision, parents look out for the best interest of the child. if the child expresses a desire to play, the parents research the matter and make an "informed decision" that it's okay for her to play, why should the school board not allow her to play? And you can argue all you want but the bottom line is because she's a girl. Yes, playing sports is a privilege and not a right but it's not a privilege that should be denied just because of a person's gender.

And we all know that every parent has their child's best interests in mind when it comes to athletics??? Yeah right! I could not even guess how many kids play only because they think it is what their dad wants. Unfortunately there are situation where a parent would push a girl into trying out for a boy's team because they think it would be neat to see their daughter break the gender barrier in the NFL, college wrestling, etc. We absolutely cannot count on the parents to make the best decision for their kids when it comes to sports.

And yes, if you boil it down to the very basic premise, you are not allowing a girl to play simple because she is a girl. But the reason behind that is the fact the boys and girls a different when it comes to physical strength. It is a physiological fact that on average girls are not as strong as boys, and that has to be considered when deciding who can and cannot play.

So, now you're saying that it's morally and ethically deplorable for a girl to compete against boys? But I would love to hear the answer to your questiuon. Do you know the answer? How about giving us 5 examples?

Questions don't establish a point. Facts establish a point.

First, 5 examples of what? Also, in moral/ethical discourse rhetorical questions can go quite a long way in establishing a point. In a general policy debate facts are quite important, but considering we having what is primarily a values debate, facts are relatively minor.

As for the ethically deplorable issue, it's pretty ridiculous to even suggest that girls competing with boys is a bad thing. It is deplorable if we become so caught up on promoting gender equity that we as a society forget our mission to protect our fellow citizens. I go back to the point I raised before: you can't count on parents to do the job, so sometimes it is necessary for an otherwise "uninvolved" party to set the rules.

Any athlete that walks onto a field or court is subject to injury. Just because the athlete is a girl does not necessarily place her in a position that she is more subject to injury than a boy. If the athlete chooses to participate, then the athlete has made the choice. it;s not up to society to say, "No, you can't play honey. You might get hurt."

Actually there are a number of factors that not only put girls at greater risk for fractures and knee injuries, and fractures early in life create more problems for women than men later in life.

The bigger issue however is about making the choice to participate. As I said, I belive a girl in high school can make her own "athletic choices." Younger children cannot give informed consent. Again, we can't always depend on parents to act in the child's best interest. If there was a reason a boy would be at higher risk for injury than other boys, then he should not be allowed to play.

Sorry but the courts agree in these situations, that a athlete shouldn't be forbidden from competing simply because the athlete is a girl.

And obviously we must "obey" the decision of the court when making policy decisions. For the philosphical issues though, the decisions of any court does not really matter. I'm not going to change my mind on this just because a court "says so." My philosophical position is pretty firm here, and no court decisions is going to change that, just like past court decisions have had no bearing on my positions on numerous other issues.

[Edited by PSU213 on Aug 10th, 2003 at 10:26 PM]