<p>You’re needed in New York…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Boy</a> barred from field hockey team - News | FOX Sports on MSN](<a href=“http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/thirteen-year-old-boy-barred-from-girls-varsity-field-hockey-team-042612]Boy”>http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/thirteen-year-old-boy-barred-from-girls-varsity-field-hockey-team-042612)</p>
<p>Wow! Who knew that a boy could play a girl’s sport as long as he wasn’t the dominant player? What a strange rule (seems strange to me). I thought boys don’t play girl’s sports. Most sports they have girls teams and boys teams, but a few sports are only played by boys (like football- with a few exceptions) or girls (field hockey). I think volleyball is a girls only sport in NC, although it is certainly played by men in many places. I haven’t heard of any boys playing on girls volleyball teams here.</p>
<p>How is this a Title IX issue? I don’t see it referenced anywhere in the link provided. It looks like this was a decision made by the local ruling body.</p>
<p>An individual is being discriminated against because of gender. That makes it a Title IX issue…</p>
<p>This school is just a few miles away from my home. </p>
<p>When our public school didn’t have a varsity girl’s soccer team, we had a couple of girls play on the boy’s soccer team. No big deal–everyone got along.</p>
<p>I remember when my kids were still in HS, there was a private school a few miles away which allowed a transgendered (boy to girl–forgive me if I’m not being PC. I don’t know how else to explain it.) to join the girl’s cheerleading squad for the boy’s basketball team. After the initial surprise by opponent teams, it really didn’t faze anyone. No one cared.</p>
<p>The boy in question at the Southampton High School is very small and petite. The girls on his team tower over him so his talent in the game has little to do with his physical size. In this instance, they should just let the boy play. Physically, he isn’t a danger to the girls (he’s tiny).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/26/boy-field-hockey-star-kicked-off-high-school-girl-team-for-being-too-good/[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/26/boy-field-hockey-star-kicked-off-high-school-girl-team-for-being-too-good/</a>
^watch this video. You’ll get a better idea of his size.</p>
<p>this is completely a title IX issue and against the law. There’s no equivalent men’s team for him to play on, and he needs to be allowed to play on the team as long as he is the best one for the position.</p>
<p>I hope an attorney comes forward to take care of this.</p>
<p>Not allowing a boy on a girl’s team does not mean a school is necessarily out of compliance with Title IX. Among the factors the Department of Education uses to judge compliance is whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes. This does not mean a school must offer the same teams or exact same opportunities to both genders. As long as the school meets the “three prong test” they are in compliance. These are:
<p>once again, no one cares when there is discrimination against a male (posters in this thread excepted), I doubt anyone is surprised.</p>
<p>Not allowed to play a sport because of your sex = discrimination. It’s exactly the same as if a school refused to let a female play on the football team.</p>
<p>The school can argue that he’s not being discriminated against because he’s male, but because he’s too good. A male who was lousy at field hockey could play without issue.</p>
<p>One’s discrimination and against the law. The other may be discrimination but it’s probably legal.</p>
<p>Exactly. The fact that it is discrimination does not necessarily make it a Title IX issue. He could sue under Title IX and likely lose, based on the three-pronged test. What the school likely did was go beyond the requirements of Title IX in allowing him to play initially, and then the Section (league) used their judgment to rescind that allowance. </p>
<p>Did anyone else besides me think it odd that a 13-year-old was playing a high school varsity sport? Is that normal? Would it make a difference if he was 16, was 6’ 2" and 220?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So do you actually think they could disallow a female from playing for that reason?</p>
<p>mini, that’s what I thought, too. How many 13 year olds are in high school? And how has he played for the last 2 years on a high school team?!</p>
<p>Anyway, he should be allowed to play. If there’s no equivalent team, they have to allow it. I fought very hard to be able to play on a formerly all-boys team and I don’t see why this is different.</p>
<p>Interesting take on it: <a href=“http://sports.yahoo.com/news/male-field-hockey-player-allowed-compete-southamptons-girls-133100364.html[/url]”>http://sports.yahoo.com/news/male-field-hockey-player-allowed-compete-southamptons-girls-133100364.html</a> It seems to disprove a lot of what the officials are saying.</p>
<p>like mini, I wonder what size has to do with the possibllity of gender discrimination?
Whether he’s 5’2 or 6’2, he is still a player that has the skill to make the team. Why is it discrimination if a girl is kept off a football team but not so many wail when it’s a guy being shortchanged?
Where are the outspoken feminists? They fought long and hard for a generation or more to have women treated equally. Why don’t they squawk when women are treated better- because that implies men are treated less well. Did they want equality or superiority?
My compliments to romani’s skill and perseverance, but doesn’t that open a whole can of worms? What if 10 boys were skilled at volleyball? Could they oust 10 girls(for this example not as good as the boys) then the “girls” team has 10 boy starters?</p>
<p>I think that obviously some people care or we wouldn’t be talking about it. Whether it falls under Title IX is a case for the lawyers, but I think it is worthy of further scrutiny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or does it mean it’s time to start a boys volleyball team?</p>
<p>^ Right. If there’s THAT much interest, it’s likely time for a boys’ league.</p>
<p>“Whether he’s 5’2 or 6’2, he is still a player that has the skill to make the team. Why is it discrimination if a girl is kept off a football team but not so many wail when it’s a guy being shortchanged?”</p>
<p>I think it probably makes a difference, and that’s what entered into the league’s thinking. It is billed as a Girls Field Hockey League. It is easy to imagine ten 6’2’ 220 lb. sixteen year old males going out and making the team. It was easier for the team because he is only 13 (I still don’t know why he is on the team to begin with - is he really in high school?) and weighs only 82 lbs., but it might not be so easy for the league.</p>
<p>The argument is stated well in the article: "Section XI’s executive director, Ed Cinelli, told FOX’s WNYW, “As a sport it’s a girls sport. When a boy plays, it leads the way for other male players to come in and take over.”</p>
<p>I can see the discrimination; I can’t see the Title IX violation. I doubt any lawyer would sue under Title IX, as it is an obvious loser. </p>
<p>“Where are the outspoken feminists? They fought long and hard for a generation or more to have women treated equally. Why don’t they squawk when women are treated better- because that implies men are treated less well. Did they want equality or superiority?”</p>
<p>In rowing, and in some other sports (sometimes there is “under 175lb football), teams are differentiated by size. I can imagine it is theoretically possible to set up a “size” test, which would allow him to play, but would not allow the 6’2” 220 pounders too. Of course, then it wouldn’t be a girls’ field hockey team. Many schools likely KEEP all-girl’s field hockey teams in order to COMPLY with Title IX. Making the team gender-neutral might subvert the very purpose for which Title IX is intended.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrestling and football are considered “male” sports but there are no rules against a female going out for them. In fact, there are plenty of females who have success in wrestling. </p>
<p>I have read previously in state athletics by-laws that females could participate in sports like soccer, basketball, baseball, track, etc on a male team if their school does not offer that particular sport (or softball instead of baseball) BUT a male specifically could not participate in that female sport if their school didn’t offer the male counterpart.</p>
<p>That’s wrong. </p>
<p>This article is all about him being male. If he were a female standout, the league wouldn’t be running that individual out!</p>
<p>And as far as age goes, I’ve heard some states will allow 7th and 8th graders play high school sports…</p>
<p>Our state and likely many others now have girl’s wrestling in addition to what was considered “boys” wrestling with a few girls participating.</p>
<p>In the state of Washington softball is not considered to be the equivalent of baseball for title IX purposed and females are permitted to turn out for the baseball team even if softball is offered. </p>
<p>As Mini said, much of title IX is about facilities and slots for participation. Because football uses so many slots for men’s athletic participation those opportunities must be balanced by opportunities for girls and women to participate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Grab some pads and let’s go! Nothing saying they can’t!</p>