Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Schirmer's avatar

Of course males have advantages. That's WHY we have women's sport. And no, it isn't a minuscule problem. Why? When a male takes a woman's spot, it doesn't affect only one person. It affects hundreds. It affects all the women who could have reasonably competed for the spot. It affects their families, coaches, and friends. It affects all those the male competes against and their families, coaches, and friends. It often endangers competitors, affecting them, their families, coaches, friends, and medical teams. It dampens enthusiasm for sport among women.

And this is just sport. It solidifies gender stereotypes. It creates a climate where the interests of girls and women are subordinated to "affirming" fixed false views and beliefs. And it empowers men to set boundaries for women.

Expand full comment
Sufeitzy's avatar

Emma, (if I can call you that), the article is spot-on and factual, but I think it might be more valuable to rethink what's happening and seeing what underlies these behaviors to pass more focused judgement.

These men have a compulsion to imitate women. It's a biologically-based behavioral phenomenon, often called sexual mimicry. These men imitate women for two core reasons.

First, to avoid male competition in general. They are quite successful with this avoidance, men imitating women die of male violence at half the rate of other men Second, by avoiding male competition, they gain access to females they wouldn't have otherwise.

This second model takes a coupe of forms - they gain access to women, without male presence, for reproduction, so we see prison rape. They gain access to female territory without male presence, to mark it with urine, so we have men in women's restrooms. They gain sexual pleasure at seeing women in intimate spaces without men preventing it, so we have men leering in dressing rooms in gyms and spas. Finally, they establish physical supremacy over female groups without male competition, so we see men in women's sports.

Sports is easy to think of as ritualized warfare, without the death and destruction, and with it comes titles and hierarchical status. However, in women's sports, with no men present, it's perfect, and they dominate their harem, or pack, or with apes, it's called a 'shrewdness' of apes.

Biology has many examples of male sexual mimicry, it's present in all complex animals except amphibians. The male giant cuttlefish can control its chromatophores, presenting one half its body to a male as female, to avoid aggression, and the other half as male to a female in the harem to impregnate her with a tentacle (technically, an arm).

To the article, there is no purpose to men competing with women in sports other than to simultaneously promote the female imitation, and to establish paradoxical male physical supremacy over women without having to compete with males. It's not that they are stronger than women - that's almost irrelevant, it's a given. It's that males aren't present that is the key. It's very simple behavioral biology.

There are many other aspects to the behavior when you grasp it is just men compulsively imitating women - there are many things they must do to ensure the deception is not revealed. They redefine all sex around their behavior - it's not men and women, it's cis-men and cis-women. It's not mothers, it's pregnant people. The create sex ambiguity to keep the pretense up - it's not sex, its one of innumerable and meaningless genders. It's not teen anxiety about their bodies changing, it's that their sex is uncertain. It's not sex at conception, it's sex 'assigned' at birth.

I call the phenomenon, the behavior, 'mimisexuality'.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts