<p>Thank you for the information. In light of that, then let me change the first portion of my wording to:
It has been used often to apply to sports, and I feel confident it has mostly been used(when applied to sports) to see that girls’ sports weren’t shortchanged because boys sports dominated so.</p>
<p>
It seems to me that this particular case is unusual because the boy isn’t very big. If he were a foot taller than the girls and outweighed them all by 50 pounds, the atmospherics would be quite different.</p>
<p>I may respectfully disagree. If the issue is fairness based on gender, then the size of a player should not be at issue. If it’s ok for a boy to be on a girls team, then it’s ok for a big boy to be on a girls team, just as a big girl on a girls team would be permitted. There has been nothing to indicate the team is limited by size and weight- but by gender.</p>
<p>Ah, the kid is a ringer from Ireland. LOL.</p>
<p>Title IX isn’t going to change anytime soon because of animosity on both sides of the issue. Mainstream womens’ groups don’t want to give an inch because of the shoddy treatment of female athletes in days gone by. Males complain how former varsity sports have been relegated to club status or eliminated entirely at both the high school and college level. Also, non-football males also complain about double standards because they get torpedoed by the financial heft of the football program. Just ask the FORMER athletes in non-revenue sports at schools like Rutgers, where many sports were put on the chopping block while the university sought to expand the “Football Department.”</p>
<p>You can’t blame female athletes for the psychic and financial dominance of HS and collegiate football. Title IX actually was written to ensure equitable sporting opportunities for women. Also, in terms of administration at the HS level assessments are based on facilities in addition to participation numbers by gender and across sports or “chances to play” as measured by available slots in offered sports. The standard argument against this metric is that girls and young women don’t want to participate in athletics so the men’s numbers will be artificially limited by low female participation. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/advocate/title-ix-and-issues/history-of-title-ix/history-of-title-ix[/url]”>http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/advocate/title-ix-and-issues/history-of-title-ix/history-of-title-ix</a></p>
<p>
Well, what’s your solution? If all teams are fully open to both boys and girls, the boys will replace the girls in any sport in which size and muscle mass is an advantage–in other words, most of them. That would be the exact opposite of what Title IX was intended to achieve. I suppose you could preclude girls from playing on boys’ teams in order to promote an illusion of fairness, but I don’t understand the point. The simple fact is that girls are able to take only a tiny sliver of slots on boys’ teams, while boys would be able to take virtually all of the slots on girls’ teams. Pretending that this isn’t true just confuses the issue (and explains why this particular case, with a boy who is small, seems hard for people to deal with).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I think I stated here earlier my answer: when the girls teams begin to be “overrun by boys” you now have the numbers to start a boys team.</p>