We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of 'gender'? People would still be able to be 'top' of their performance level, it just wouldn't be called a 'woman' level or 'man' level anymore.
I'm not sure that this is possible while affording women a chance to compete.
Men's physical advantages over women lend them a huge advantage in sports. We rarely see men compete against women, so the degree of the difference might not be very clear.
Consider that, in 2017, the US Women's national soccer team (the best female soccer players in the US, who went on to win the world cup in 2019) was defeated by FC Dallas (a team made up of the best 14 year old boys from Dallas, TX). If there are eleven 14 year old boys in Dallas who are better than the best female soccer players in the world, how many grown men are there in the US who are better than the best woman? Thousands? Tens of thousands? With that in mind, how would you arrange a soccer league, arranged by performance level, in which women were able to compete in meaningful numbers?
I don't really understand your question. We can have as many levels to our leagues as we want. As many women can play as they want. Maybe all the women will be in lower tier leagues, maybe some will be in the higher tiers. Why's that a problem? They're still getting to play the sport with opponents around their level.
Isn't that the point of playing a sport? Playing a game with people who can challenge you. You can still play at the highest tier your ability will support. We can televise a lower tier if we want to. You can still support and follow a lower tier. What's missing from this model in your mind?
The issue is if that you do so, practically all the women would be playing in a league nobody cares about. They would be dramatically under-represented at the top of their game. Separating people by sex allows to have world class performers of both sexes.
If I'm a terrible player at the moment who can I play against? If I could play against the 14-year-olds I might be able to get a game.
Why not let everyone play according to their ability, not matter what their age or 'gender' or whatever other discriminations we can think of?
My point is that if you add more leagues, you're just adding more spots for men to fill up. You're not doing women a favor by replacing a program of three men's teams and three women's teams with 8 unisex teams. You might just end up with 8 men's teams.
> Isn't that the point of playing a sport? Playing a game with people who can challenge you. You can still play at the highest tier your ability will support.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the standard practice for high-school and college sports is that only one team, the 'Varsity' team, goes to the playoffs. One team per school. The B team doesn't get to compete beyond a short, standard season against other local B teams. There is certainly no playoff for the E,F,G team where women will end up. The Varsity team gets to compete to be the best. Everyone else is playing for fun.
Under the current system, the best women in a sport are on the Varsity team. They compete in playoffs. Women get to be the champion of their district/region/state/country at tennis, at soccer, at the 150 yard dash. They get to compete in stadiums full of fans, they get to stand up on the pedestal and receive their medals and trophies. It sounds like you want to introduce a world where women don't get to play real competitive sports. Where no women are on the 'real' team, in the big games under the lights. A world where no women are champions.
You could still say 'Serena Williams is killing it this year in Level 14 tennis' if you wanted to.
What is so special about these people that means we should know about them compared to someone of another gender, or no gender, that plays better?
> What is so special about these people
if you don't know, then I feel sorry for you.
By not grouping at the source you'll end up with almost all women being strictly lower in the rankings, which is undesirable for obvious reasons.
Not to mention the deluge of articles decrying sexism when reality is getting in the way.
I mean, it is not a question about basketball, it is about why gender is so important, when there are tens of parameters that may matter for a particular game. Sports is (should be at least) valued for an effort, skill and hard work first, builtin params last. This entire system is broken at the core, and gender is among the last of problems here.
You could be the 'only woman in level 4 sprinting'.
And wouldn't it be better for women - if they're able to push beyond other women and also compete with men? There would certainly be men in lower tiers than the top tier women.
[1] http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/T...
World champion second tier doesn't quite have the same ring to it though
I don't know whether that's a better solution but it might be worth considering.
There are a few sports where sex / gender really are irrelevant, like shooting.
In what way is a testosterone limit of 10nmol/L not exactly a "performance level" like "100lb weight class"?