Liberty Anderson. Too bad they wouldn’t let her try to win fairly.
Lyberty Anderson, a junior at Manchester High School in Midlothian, Virginia, and undeniably female, won the Virginia state boys Division AAA golf championship with an eagle on the final hole to capture the 36-hole tournament by one stroke. Lyberty is a terrific golfer, having demonstrated her precocious golf talents by winning women’s tournaments before she was in high school. Nonetheless, the boy’s tournament was outrageously slanted in her favor, and against her male competitors, tainting her victory.
Lyberty won, but she didn’t play the same course as her male opponents. She was allowed to tee her drives up on the shorter women’s tee, meaning that while the boys had to play a 6,653-yard course, hers was more than 1,000 yards shorter, almost 20%. As Washington Post sportswriter Fred Bowen pointed out, Lyberty can’t be blamed for this: she played by the rules, and played as well as anyone could ask. She now says if she competes in the boys tournament again next year, she’ll tee of from the same spot as her competitors. That shows she understands fairness.
Why don’t Virginia golf officials? The rule allowing girls to use a shorter course in a boys tournament is indefensible—foolish, illogical, and unfair. If it is a boys tournament and girls are allowed to compete, then obviously they should compete by the boys rules, exactly as if they were male. Female wrestlers competing in boys wrestling matches don’t get to carry blackjacks to even the odds. Girls in Little League don’t get four strikes. What is the muddled thinking behind such a rule? If girls can’t compete against boys in the same sports, that is what women’s sports are for. If they can, or think they can, let them try—-but it should be on equal terms.
Some insight into the muddled thinking that gave Lyberty her dubious championship can be gleaned from the letter received by the Post from a Nicole Van Hoey, who objected to Bowen’s critique. In golf, she points out, alternate tees are used to “account for average muscle and strength differences” between genders as well amateurs and professional competitors. Yes, and that is why the genders as well as amateurs and professional compete in different tournaments. “The separations don’t give one an advantage in coordination, aim or agility,” she argues. Well, so what? They do give an advantage in total distance, and that’s plenty—enough, in fact, to change the tournament from an honest and fair competition into a farce. If a boy won the championship—lets say it was a small, seemingly weak boy—playing essentially a different course, nobody would argue that was fair. Why should Anderson’s win be regarded any differently because she has a different set of chromosomes? Van Hoeythen closes with soaring, if hollow rhetoric, writing,
[Bowen’s] comments only undermine female athletics instead of focusing on the tenets of sports and pride in athletic achievement for youth of any gender.
No, what undermines female athletics is this kind of anti-competitive affirmative action that violates the tenets of fair competition on an equal playing field, applying the same rules to all competitors, and legitimate pride only in achievements that are really achievements, not rigged results.
___________________________
Pointer: Washington Post
Facts: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Ethics Alarms 
If Virginia rules allow boys to compete evenhandedly in girl’s golf events I’d say that takes some wind from your sails, but I’m betting a cup of coffee they don’t or no such events exist statewide.
Guys are guys and gals are gals. The time has come to re-acknowledge this simple fact of life and act accordingly.
Except this “simple fact of life” is not backed up by reality.
It’s one of the central realities of existence, TGT. If you can’t even acknowledge this, then your entire worldview is based on the sheerest fantasy in has no relevance.
This post reminded me of one of the lingering bitternesses in my life; it will never go away: Find me ONE female military member who was disqualified from Fort Benning parachute-jump training because she could not perform seven overhand pull-ups (I did six…twice in 5 minutes).
When the theory is defeated by the reality, the liberal answer is to artificially alter the reality by altering the standards. Common enough. But this sort of thing should have no place in the Army. We deal with the most basic realities of all as a matter of necessity for the mission.
Stupid, stupid.
Well, probably not in any “black and white” sense term, anyways. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be “men and women differ on average on a unknown number of traits, apparently with a decent deal of overlap between them.” But I suppose that doesn’t make a catchy slogan.
I’ve been waiting for the first woman to play professional baseball, and I’m certain that it will happen eventually… There WILL be a female Jackie Robinson-type icon in the majors at some point. But I am also certain that MLB won’t devise different ground rules for a female player… If you’re good enough to play with the big boys, you play by their rules. It’s a given. And now it’s only tradition and prejudice keeping highly talented women baseball players out of the major leagues.
“And now it’s only tradition and prejudice keeping highly talented women baseball players out of the major leagues.”
Where is that talent? Names, positions, leagues, locales, stats?
My guess is that the first female MLB player will most likely be a pitcher or Ichiro-like DH – less likely, but possibly, a 2B or 3B. What do you think?
Partly answered my own questions:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/447773-no-girls-allowed-why-arent-there-any-women-in-mlb