I mean, they can I suppose. Only if they're a "kicker" for Vandy and ESPN wants to get extra woke that week. Tongue in cheek, kinda. Again, I'm just simple-minded enough to think a female competing as a male isn't a competitive advantage. A male competing as a female certainly is. I know that's not popular thinking, but it's literally based in genetics and athletic science.
I agree with this completely, sort of. I don't know the answer. Not sure there's a good one. Idk about the politics part of it though. I've got a couple of daughters. I wouldn't be terribly happy if they had to compete with males in SERIOUSish athletics.
Here's the best example I could give. At one time, I was a pretty damned decent golfer. Never good enough to make a living at it, but pretty solid. Some lower level D1 interest and could've (read should've) been a member of a D2 national champion. I had enough financial backers at one time to try to make a go of it professionally (please don't think PGA tour, certainly mini tour stuff), but I knew I wasn't good enough. Had I been competing as a female, I'd have played professionally for a long time. I've played with a few ladies that spent some time cashing checks on the LPGA. I'm not belittling them at all, because it really is apples to oranges...but I took more cash than I lost. There's just a big time advantage. And it's genetics. For whatever reason, in my simple mind, this is why the street only goes one direction. While it may not be equal, I think it's fair, again IMHO.
FWIW, I really enjoy these conversations. I don't think it's going away. And part of why I like them I think is because of what you said, not knowing the answers.
