Scientific mystery: why do men and woman compete separately in pool/billiard...

Scientific mystery: why do men and woman compete separately in pool/billiard? It does not require any particular physical strength or endurance.

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/Fausto-Sterling - Sexing the Body.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I am former champion pool player and have thought same thing. Pool/ Billiard is a game of Brain & finesse not Brawn & gender has nothing to do with it. and games should be completely nongender determinate.

Pool is a game for faggots and lesbians, they split this up into 2 leagues because faggots!=lesbians.

...

I understand that it's hard to see why there should be gender segregation in professional pool and billiards, but

>games should be completely nongender determinate

is a statement that relates to very few games when interpreted under the 'equal preconditions' mindset. Of course there will be outliers for both genders, but in general, males have e.g. better reaction times than females, so females would go into games requiring real-time reaction with a disadvantage.

I do realize that this segregation is somewhat arbitrary, because for true fairness to be present you'd basically have to have two clones brought up and living in the exact same conditions play each other, and even then, there's probably some genetic and metabolic chance involved that would skew the fairness (equal preconditions).

Although I've only watched maybe around 20 male world championship level-equivalent pool matches, and I've never even seen female professional pool, I'd be willing to bet my life savings that the top male players will outclass the top female players in head-to-head matches.

Insecure about getting your white ball cued with a chalked stick?

When I said pool I meant snooker. My bad.

The only place I think males might dominate would be on the initial break where male physical strength would exceed female. This is crucial in some specific games like 9 ball where 'the break' is often the most important shot of the game. Other then this , as in billiards where the break is secondary or in some games not important at all gender could easily be non gender.

Reach can have an influence - females being generally shorter and having a shorter reach on some shots on the 9 foot tables.

Prolly boils down often tho to the boyz not wanting to get shown up by lil miss cutie pie........

or darts, or chess, or curling, or tenpin bowling, or Scrabble, or ......

or sex especially sex!

Do it, fucker. Do it. People always say they'd bet everything on something because they know there isn't a chance it will be tested.

They say it about chess, too.

But you need to stop believing what you know is bullshit. For your own good. This gender binary thing... it's dead. It's been dead. It never even lived. Get the fuck over it and just say "yeah - it's complete bullshit we use to justify more bullshit." Just be honest with yourself, man.

because women suck (dick)

I'm not sure how I'd go about betting my life savings on something like this. I'm also not sure why you'd so adamantly claim that it's bullshit, as empirical evidence (adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment, just in case you decided to get hung up on this instead of addressing the actual content of my post) shows that males outperform females even in sports and games that are viewed as being gender indiscriminate.

Examples include all video games ever made, darts, that weird game in which you alternately roll a ball-ish object on the floor to get it as close as possible to a specifically colored ball as possible which name I forget, curling, golf (I guess strength comes into play here), chess, go (aka. baduk/weiqi), etc.

In light of this evidence, I'd be foolish not to bet on a top male player over a female player.

I also find it funny that you bring up chess, the prime example of top males outperforming top females with no physical factors except for neurological ones.

There might be many reasons for this discrepancy, and I can name a fuckton of hypotheses, it might even be that there are more males doing , thus males are over-represented at the top, but this is not a good reason to bet your life savings on a top female over a top male.

Just for the record I am male, and I'm almost completely sure that no matter what, there will always be at least one woman who is better than me at whatever I do (though that may not be the same woman, as I'm sure you can pick an arbitrary male world champion/scientist/mathematician/whatever and I will do at least one thing better than they can).

Maybe what's bullshit is the implied underlying assumption that "male" is a consistent and objectively definable category.

Maybe what's bullshit is the tongue-in-cheek use of the word "superior" in a way that carries some causation to the data you cite other than literal centuries of excluding women from participating in such activities.

Give it time, buddy... you'll see. That gender binary - that safe and comfortable shorthand where you're just born man or woman, and what you can do is mostly predetermined, and it's as simple as that: it's simply not objectively true.

So maybe it's bullshit to try and "explain" what is obvious sexism in a sport by using the data culled from years of its having been sexist as proof that it should be separated by sexes.

You're smarter than this. Fucking seriously.

There is no difference because genders are a social construct anyway.

I can empathize with your viewpoint, but I can't shake the feeling that your argument is basically 'I want it to be true therefore it is true'.

>Maybe what's bullshit is the implied underlying assumption that "male" is a consistent and objectively definable category.

Eh, I just go by the normal definition; "a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man." I think this is a consistent and objectively definable category. As per the definition, the requirement is having an X and Y chromosome, and in most cases but not necessarily having a penis, scrotum and testicles. Note that I'm not arguing about social constructs or people with weird chromosomes or anything like that, these are just the definitions I apply to categorize males and females.

>Maybe what's bullshit is the tongue-in-cheek use of the word "superior" in a way that carries some causation to the data you cite other than literal centuries of excluding women from participating in such activities.

I think you read too much into that, unless you by "superior" mean "generally better at some things and generally worse at other things than people in the female category", which I consider as self-evident. Note the use of the word "generally". Also, the quoted paragraph might imply that you think exclusion from activities somehow affected the genes of females, which I find to be a ridiculous notion.

>what you can do is mostly predetermined
Of course the upper limit of what you can do will always be predetermined, you can't possibly argue this?

>it's simply not objectively true.
This is an entirely baseless claim, it's just conjecture.

Me again.

So in this post I defined males as having an X and an Y chromosome in their cells, and I'll define women as having XX chromosomes.

Let's say I categorized almost all (because some people won't fit into the XY/XX dichotomy) people into two categories by some other metric, like nail growth rate or nasal hair length and after 50 years of observation I made the claim that people with faster nail growth rate outperform people with slower nail growth rate in academic performance, what possible reason would you have to contend this? None, because you have no preconceived notion that all people must be equal regardless of nail growth rate. It's not important to you (until you're informed of this anyway), so you don't care. But you seem to care a lot about people born with genetic and physical differences being exactly equal in terms of genetics and physical differences, which simply does not make sense.

---

I think I drifted a little far from the topic, though. Maybe they should have some mixed gendered tournaments, and if the females don't get completely destroyed by the male competition they could just abolish the gender segregation for that particular sport or game. Doing so in general would just lower the quality for both the players and the audience though, so I'm not a fan of doing this until females can hold their own against males.

I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I really do. I mean, I get it - there should be no particular stigma attached to any genetic component, and if we treat sex as informed by chromosomal variation, then it would fall into that category, and thus data regarding it would be objectively analyzed as much as any other aspect of humanity that has no culturally loaded baggage (e.g., hair-growth rate, nail-growth rate, surface area of duodenum, etc.).

So, then, why not take that approach to its logical conclusion? Why not just remove the distinction of male and female altogether? The problem with these categories is that they lump together so many various phenotypes into a cohesive group, when they don't necessarily fit so neatly.

I would strongly recommend this read:
libcom.org/files/Fausto-Sterling - Sexing the Body.pdf

I know it's from a gender-studies perspective, which is often associated with soft-science bias, but the section on assignment and codification is really worth looking at.

>there is no gender binary
>there is sexism

Choose one

At any game, whether purely mental or requirng little physical input, males have a significant advantage in anticipatory strategy and dominnance through repetition.

Women have a mental handicap.

This.

Because men are better. It's literally not fair for the two to compete in a game with an objective and fair setting.

Men have better coordination, arm and hand strength, better spatial reasoning, etc.

They had to make female categories because women can't compare.

>there is no genetic basis for race
>there is racism

Perception of a thing doesn't mean objective existence of a thing.

>there is no [insert favorite deity here]
>there are people who have been killed for believing in [insert favorite deity here]

Belief in a thing makes it real to whoever believes in it.

>light is a wave
>light is a particle

Choose one

Because men are superior in mental faculties required to make shots and judge direction.

There are literally no competitive events that women outperform men in. Chess is separated for a reason and everyone knows it.

Fair enough

Greater scientific mystery: why is there no concept of sexual sports or games?

We've gamified everything else, so why not sex?

God damn you couldn't have picked a worse fucking example than chess.

The top males in Chess outrank the top females so incredibly it's as if they're in different leagues entirely

Men have on average better spatial awareness.

>there is no genetic basis for race
And better control.
And better planning.
And better everything.

They'd be better at being pregnant if it was possible.
It's like, man, like the male was more harshly selected than female in our species, as is the case in ALL the mammals.

Men and women complement each other. Neither is superior. If one sex was superior evolution would be disproven.

They are superior at certain tasks. Women are superior at nurturing young. Women have a superior sense of smell.

Fine point. I was a wrestler for years and matched up to four girls in 7 years. I showed no mercy. I guess because there is enough people in pool to make it divisional

Women are superior at breastfeeding

Most likely the same reason women are separated from men in basically all other sports: because women suck at everything.

Males have on average better spatial reasoning ability.