the great sex debate - equal?

That's a basic starting point for me. I don't know whether that makes me 'feminist' - some people say men aren't entitled to call themselves that - but I can't see how those key points are arguable.

Girls worldwide are being mutilated with forced circumcisions ie: removal/cutting off the hood of the clitoris or sometimes the clitoris itself and sometimes the labis majora &/or minora - a deliberate means to remove any sexual pleasure they may experience.

The female 'equivalent' is often even worse than you suggest, Toraneko. I won't go into details here because it is really very foul indeed, and I'm sure most people know it. I know the same word is used, but I do think that is misleading.

The rationale for performing this ritual of brutality upon newborn males varies from the hygiene argument (females produce smegma too), to STD reduction (there is some evidence that this may be true), to a reduced rate of penile cancer (it should be borne in mind that cancer of the penis is exceedingly rare. Breast cancer is far more common yet no one would suggest we should cut out the breast buds of all baby girls as a means of prevention.

You can find far more information at websites such as the following: http://www.circumcision.org/welcome.htm If you have the stomach for it, read the the section related to "Infants Response to Circumcision". I find it deeply disturbing that so many people are appalled by the practice of female genital mutilation (clitoridectomy [removal of the clitoris] and infibulation [sewing together the labial lips]) yet are completely ignorant of the barbaric, wide-spread, accepted and ENCOURAGED practice of neonatal circumcision practices. I am firmly opposed to the genital mutilation of anyone who lacks the ability to give their own informed consent.

I don't know where to put this.

Had something happen today that was one of those reminders that, at 55, things that seem self-evident to me aren't always so. At our baseball tournament today (I was coaching the girls team, but both tournaments ran simultaneously), one of the boys teams had a girl on their team. Not surprisingly, she was great--in one of her AB I caught, she knocked it well over the left fielder's head.

I still remember the story in the '70s when it was a big deal--a breakthrough that most everyone applauded--that a girl (forget her name) was allowed to play on a boys little league team. So to my way of thinking, I was absolutely fine with this girl playing on the boys team today. I thought it was great--she was obviously more than good enough.

Our boys coach (male) and third coach (female--she helped with both teams), both in their early 30s, thought this was a terrible thing. The boys coach is going to e-mail a complaint tomorrow. To their way of thinking, it sent out all the wrong messages. 1) It put an official stamp on the idea that boys were thought to play at a higher level, and that this girl had "earned" the right to move up. 2) No boy would ever be called upon to play on the girls team, and even if a boy were asked, no boy would ever agree to that.

To point one I'd say that, in the aggregate, at this age (13-14) and in Canada, the level of play with boys is indeed higher--every time. Not individually, though: there are anywhere from one to four or five girls, depending upon how strong the two teams are, who are better than their counterparts on the boys team. And they would in no way automatically become the worst players on the boys team; they'd be all over the spectrum, and occasionally, like today and like a girl we had at our school a few years back (in high school now, and headed to the States on a baseball scholarship), there'd be a girl who was the best player on the field.

To the second point, no argument.

Anyway, my main point: that we saw this so differently. I'm not saying I'm right--it was, as, um, Ice Cube says, a teachable moment for the old guy.

You were right. She should get to play on the most competitive team she can if that's what she wants.

They were wrong. They would keep boys and girls apart in order to maintain an appearance of equality (separate but equal.) This approach won't help the individual athletes get the opportunity to play on the team thay's most appropriate for them -- it will just bog kids down in an interminable discussion.

I'll point out that a couple of our girls were offended too. I sincerely don't know what's right here--their objections threw me for a loop and got me thinking.

I mean the key thing is that the one girl gets to play on the better team right? Presumably the level of play isn't high enough on the girls team. People should get the chance to take on whatever challenges they want.

Wait three years and it'll be hard to find a boy who wouldn't want to play in an otherwise all-girls baseball team :)

But yes - this is a nice little dilemma here

I can't think of a situation be no boys/girls teams at all, it's purely coed and decided by talent level? Would that do enough to erase the stigma?

As to the first, it's better that while she can she gets to play with the best available - within a couple of years, the boys physical capabilities are likely to overwhelm her skill and talent.

I can't think of a solution to the second issue, should the situation be*

the second point doesn't take into account whether "girls" or "boys" might want to have "single gender" teams/leagues

trying to avoid bringing down the legitimate concerns of the MRA bros

Coed teams could be good.

Talking about individuals taking on chosen challenges is dodging the question, surely.

I should have made clear that the other two coaches are 100% in favour of coed teams. They want either coed or strictly same-gender, just not isolated exceptions.

Wait three years and it'll be hard to find a boy who wouldn't want to play in an otherwise all-girls baseball team :)
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand)

True! I used to tell my grade 6 boys that all the time when any of them would squawk about having to work with girls (girls only rarely complained): "You know, two or three years from now, you'd kill for this opportunity."