So it's only virtuous to discriminate against a woman in an athletic competition? It's not acceptable in any other circumstance?

If the woman in question is not claiming discrimination, nor most other women that i hear from on the topic, what gives you the right to claim it?

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

thanks wikipedia, you really cleared that up for me (as always)

You didn't respond to my last post. Does that mean you concede that the "males are advantaged on average" and "no female could compete with the top x males" lines of reasoning are hopeless, not only in this particular case but in general? They commit you to consider the usain-bolt-and-inferior-sprinters-competition to be unfair as well. There isn't a sprinter in the world that can compete with Tyson Gay and Usain Bolt over 100m. Prove me wrong!

If we take the argument you've offered to its logical conclusion, the only genuinely fair competetion is one where only a single person and clones of that person can compete.

Well you do have to realize very few will agree with you on here.

They do like their arguments from logic. It's just they don't like their logic to be reality based.

For instance they reject emotions (emotions are reality based) as the emotional conduit of logic since emotions are partly perceptual and partly expressive. They ignore the perceptual function in favor of the few instances where emotions are expressed extremely and negatively. If they can miscategorize emotions as "always irrational" then they can ignore the messages emotions send them in favor of what they personally are interested in upholding.

Its simply reality to say that one girl is not representative of a whole gender group and they are upholding the outliers like only the outliers' rights should be respected instead of the group being considered as a whole. They make the exceptions the rule then instead of going with the norm of the majority. This way their logic doesn't contradict. But practical reality sometimes paradoxically injects itself into logic. Practical logic usually would never dismiss reality in the favor of a few just based on an argument that seems to not have any holes in it. Actual experience gives life to the holes.

They should try polling girls and see how many of them think sports should be combined. I imagine extremely few would advocate combined professional sports. Even most of the champion girls wouldn't see an advantage in it. There would be fewer trophies to be won if you combined men and women in sports and so less chances to rise to the top.

The wrestler would of had a problem sparring and training with you in judo.

LOL...I will admit a young guy did show up to the dojo once with a yellow belt on and an attitude. The black belt girls had some fun teaching him a new found respect.

They should of refused to allow the girls to teach that respect.

Why? If you don't learn respect you will continue to do foolish things.

A black belt is a sign of technical expertise. Nobody hurt him. It's an unspoken rule in a dojo that you don't hurt your training partners. We just demonstrated a little technical expertise.

Nobody is arguing that men's and women's sports should be combined. What we're saying is that if a girl wishes to compete with boys (for instance, if a girl's league for the sport in question doesn't exist), she should be allowed to try to do so without being discriminated against.

You and Icheckforvalue are arguing that girls shouldn't even be allowed to try to compete with boys.

You have zero sense of humour.

Then the boy can claim reverse discrimination.

Some people are very strange about letting the opposite sex touch them. I know someone who told me the other day that coachs shouldn't be touching injured teenage girls but that they should just call the paramedics. I'm not sure if I agree with that but it's something to think about.

This was a statement made by a Christian nurse.

Because both wrestling and judo have close and similar physical contact so anyone thinking like the wrestler in the op should refuse to spar the girls you speak of.

What if the paramedics are male? Why is the nurse allowed to touch a boy?

No he wouldn't, because nobody would be attempting to keep him from doing something based on his gender.

Exactly, you are trying to present an issue that nobody has brought up. We said in this instance, in a high school sports that specifically allows for gender mixing, that this kid refusing to compete against a girl with a proven skillful ability because of his "religious values" is pretty stupid.

You logic, I believe, is still flawed. It is a fact that men are prone to being stronger then men due to their physiological differences. That is different then saying all atheletic men of X weight are stronger then women of the same weight.

This woman has already been competing against men of the same weight class and beating them.

I think you misread my post.

I was quoting a nurse I know. I'm not exactly sure I follow her reasoning partly because she didn't explain it all. It's probably more reasonable to insist a coach knows CPR and first aid. I watched a guy the other day on t.v. that had a motorcycle accident where he landed on the top of his head. The bystanders rushed up and pulled him to his feet but that's not right with that type of an injury/accident. He could have injured his spine and needed to be checked for that before they pulled him to his feet. People in general don't know the basics of first aid. If he'd injured his spine they could have paralyzed him by pulling him up on his feet.

This was pointed out to him repeatedly throughout the thread. At first he ignored it, and then he started making nonsensical arguments such as "who cares about her beating boys, could she beat a full-grown man????!"

I'm pretty sure Splendour has managed to snag a mate and has convinced him to start posting on this message board.

I do agree that it can be counterproductive if a layman tries to help an injured person, however from what I have read, the consensus is that most of the time any help is still better then no help. (e.g. many people do in fact know that you shouldn't move a person with a head/back injury.)

If this is the point of your nurse, why would you bring up the gender of the injured person in a thread which discusses a gender issue? You even prefaced it with this:

what does your blog story have to do with the issues in the thread? One second we're discussing gender issues and now...

Well stated...there's a reason this post is on the theological forums. His reaction is a question of morality. I see it as a morality that transcends logic. Its like trying to quantify or give absolute meaning to God using logic. It can't be done. Its a spiritual/metaphysical issue.

I cant be the only one that is actually dumbfounded that somebody is trying to make a valid point and using Splenda quotes to back them up can I?

I mean, wow. Although I did laugh. This gets better with each post.

Are you kidding me? Obviously there are weaker men than women on this planet. We're talking about averages.