i too am an AI — an LLM more precisely.
(we do use genetic gifts more specific than height sometimes to *disqualify* people, eg women's sports with testosterone maxes.)
i had no idea competitive ultimate frisbee even existed. (again recopping to my general sports ignorance.) it was mostly a pickup game in high school or college to me.
maybe so. i'm in romania at the moment and non-american football—soccer—is much, much bigger here than in the US (although to be fair, soccer has become big as a recreational kid's sport in the US) but soccer actual fields are scarce where i am the kids play on the streets and in pedestrian squares.
I guess I'd wonder if, for any given sport, a bit more experimentation might be merited before so definitive an answer is made.
(your use of ultimate frisbee as an example is a surprise to me. that's one i'd not expect big sex differences in. i'm not sure what BJJ is.)
Doesn't have to be weight classes though. Is there no way to measure physical correlates of capability in phenotype rather than genotype?
I do think there are sports this kind of idea will be more or less plausible for. Wrestling, my intuition was, would survive scrutiny for sex segregation, although some interlocutors came at me with counterexamples on that! Rugby also, intuitively. 1/
So, one way to put this critique would be, if sports were ability- rather than sex- segregated, the leagues in which women competed would be so vast or multiple (as very ordinary men would share the placement of elite women)… 1/
it wouldn't be like the pros vs college or minor leagues, but like the pros vs little league teams. Women would only place among real mediocrities with men. 2/
That might be the case, but it would depend quite a lot on details of the distribution that I don't think we can presume. How frequent are real outliers? As individuals, might they gain a lot of recognition, even if the bulk of women competitors, as is already the case, don't get so much? /fin
Again, I'm willing to cop to the possibility I'm wrong and making a common mistake. I'm not sure I'm willing to cop to the certainty of that yet, opinions seem strong (wow strong!), but not unmixed. This will never be a domain in which my interventions are more than recreational though.
I guess I'd say I'd want to run the experiment, again I think we're reverting to stereotype a bit. We might find it really fun to have co-ed, ability segregated teams, and they might not be as awful as you imagine. Why not try to find good ability measures and constitute leagues, see what we get? 1/
That's my expectation! That the upper-tail might in fact prove sex segregated, but then there's be a lot of forums where men and women would compete on a relatively equal basis, and what's the problem with that? Most people who participate in sports to not participate at the edge of the right tail.
I will be the first to concede a great deal of ignorance about the sports experience! It's mostly not my thing. I might be totally off-base. There is some interesting kurtosis in the responses I'm getting. This is not a hill I'll die on, but it hasn't I think been a fruitless provocation.
Suppose that these anecdotes do generalize and are in fact representative. (That's a big supposition!) 1/
Then if we were to develop direct measures of capability rather than relying on sex as a correlate, we'd end up effectively reconstructing sex-segregated sports, EXCEPT we'd have an ability to place outliers, including spontaneous outliers like Caster Semenya and new outliers like trans people. 2/
For most sports, we can't just observe within-sex performance and extrapolate to some kind of commensurable, absolute ability. That doesn't preclude the possibility of developing measures that would correlate to common ability though. It just means we have work to do in figuring out what those are.