Gender restrictions in USTA?

[Vilgan]

Hi all,

One thing that's been a bit frustrating in my USTA experience has been how focused it is on splitting genders. This has been problematic for me since my main tennis partner/close friend/etc is the opposite gender and there are lots of same gender only classes, leagues, tournament brackets, etc. When playing other sports we've usually just been fine playing men's together, but there was a "Men's play/instruct" class recently where they explicitly told her she wasn't allowed despite hitting just as hard as the men there. Even though every participant was fine with her joining the class, the club still told her to go away and there was no unrestricted class at the same time so we weren't able to take lessons together.

Similarly, leagues and tournaments also seem very focused on splitting by gender. The only time we can play mixed league is in the fall and a lot of tournaments seem to have smaller mixed/women's brackets than men's. We played a GLTA tournament (Seattle Classic) recently where they were fine with her playing men's so she played men's singles and then we played men's doubles and that was a lot of fun. She was really glad she didn't have to play women's because the women's brackets were a lot smaller. When looking at USTA tournaments it seems like mixed and women's can be sparse at times.

Viewing tennis as something to do w/ friends together, it seems like tennis is unnecessarily rigid with regards to gender. Is my experience unusual? Or are the people who mind it such a small minority that it doesn't matter?

 

[darkhorse]

There are formats which allow co-ed teams, like WTT, but opportunities for adults aren't as numerous as they are for juniors. UTR allows for inter-gender play, so maybe that would be a good option for you and your friend, although again, it's more geared towards juniors than adults.

I suspect most people don't have an issue with the genders being separated in tennis for a variety of reasons.

 

[sureshs]

I have seen club coaches teaching mixed lessons in clinics to juniors at the intermediate level. It is easy to find boys and girls who are roughly at the same level in this intermediate category.

Regarding adult clinics, I have seen many mixed ones at resorts and camps.

There is one singles flex league in this area where men and women both play.

The men's only clinics may have a different motivation. One is that 4.5 men may feel that 4.5 women are actually like a 4.0 man and don't want to play with them. Other is a camaraderie which develops among the men over time which they come to like. There is the freedom of making dirty jokes and discussing some private matters which they cannot do in front of women.

 

[OnTheLine]

Seems unusual to me regarding clinics. Our drop-in clinics are all mixed gender ... only separated by level or age. If you are a 3.0 you are not allowed in the 4.0+ drop. If you are a 3.5+ you are not allowed in the beginner drop. If you are 29 don't try going to the senior 60+ drop in clinic they will kick you out.

If you want mixed instruction and it is not currently available, either petition your club for it (showing that there will be participation), change clubs, OR create a semi-private lesson with a group of like minded folks.

I don't care how much you say your friend hits "as hard as" a guy, she doesn't, and can't, it is simply not possible, unless she was fairly recently a he. She may hit harder than some of the men in the clinic (as do I) but in a mixed group of 4.0s, the very best woman will be in the bottom 20% of all the men, maybe.

And I can't believe that I am going to agree wholeheartedly with @sureshs on something, but I do. There is a certain camaraderie that can only exist in a single-gendered setting. Both for men and women. In a 4.5+ clinic the 4.5 men are so vastly different from the 4.5 women in terms of strength, speed, etc. that it greatly alters the playing.

When it comes to playing leagues or tournaments, that is a different story.
There are plenty of women who would be happy to play in a men's bracket.
I would guess there would be pretty much no men happy to play in a women's bracket
There would be some men okay with a woman in a men's bracket, but many who would find two problems with it:
1. Their ego couldn't handle getting beaten. 2. Their ego wouldn't like the win either

In our area there are 3 different mixed leagues, so plenty of opportunity for that if you want it.

 

[WildVolley]

I think most USTA players prefer that leagues are split based on sex (the term "gender" is a grammatical term, and in modern usage means something different than sex).

It will be interesting to see how successful UTR tournaments are that don't segregate on the basis of sex.

 

[kylebarendrick]

I'm a fan of the idea of eliminating pure gender divisions in favor of having an "open" division and a "women's" division. Having an open division creates an opportunity for people to compete against all comers, regardless of gender. It also eliminates the need to argue about what gender someone should compete as. When in doubt, play open.

 

[OnTheLine]

I think most USTA players prefer that leagues are split based on sex (the term "gender" is a grammatical term, and in modern usage means something different than sex).

.

No, USTA splits based on gender. A biological male who lives as a female plays in women's divisions (and vice versa).

 

[WildVolley]

No, USTA splits based on gender. A biological male who lives as a female plays in women's divisions (and vice versa).

OK, I didn't know that.

If that's the case, I don't understand the OP's objection. Could either the OP or the OP's friend just claim to be "non-binary" or something and play in either gender grouping?

 

[ChaelAZ]

Personally, I don’t care as long as players are level appropriate, but I play with so many different folks I just don’t think much about it anymore. I suppose some women might feel intimidated my playing against men, or men get all butthurt in there little egos if they get beat by a woman. Meh.


Probably posting from the court between sets.

 

[WildVolley]

Personally, I don’t care as long as players are level appropriate, but I play with so many different folks I just don’t think much about it anymore. I suppose some women might feel intimidated my playing against men, or men get all butthurt in there little egos if they get beat by a woman. Meh.

My playing experience is that mixed doubles is almost always much different than men's doubles at 4.0 and above. The men finish the point and the women play defense and keep away from the men.

 

[ChaelAZ]

My playing experience is that mixed doubles is almost always much different than men's doubles at 4.0 and above. The men finish the point and the women play defense and keep away from the men.

Guess it depends who you play with. I have had some matches/partners like that but more a good mix of players overall. I enjoy mixed personally.


Probably posting from the court between sets.

 

[OrangePower]

My playing experience is that mixed doubles is almost always much different than men's doubles at 4.0 and above. The men finish the point and the women play defense and keep away from the men.

Perhaps part of that is because the USTA rating scale is gender specific, i.e. a 4.0 man and 4.0 woman are not at the same absolute level.
If you had mixed teams of a 4.0M + 5.0F I think you'd find the women finishing points just as much as the men, and not attempting to keep it away from the opposing man.

 

[OnTheLine]

I have also come to enjoy mixed. It is a different style of play than women's league and requires a different skill and mindset.

HOWEVER, playing 8.0 mixed and watching 4.0 men's doubles ... those two are completely different. Tempo is different, movement is different, speed, power, everything.

I can think of very few (if any) 4.0/4.5 women that could jump into a men's 4.0 dubs match and have it not alter the game significantly. Perhaps a 22 yo 4.5 woman jumping into a men's 40+ match ... maybe.

 

[NTRPolice]

It's because people pay money for these classes, they want similarly skilled players to hit with. People complain to the head pro about skill disparity, then the head pro chews out the instructor of the class. I've seen a club pro tell a 65 year old 4.0 man that he better be a good 4.0 or else he's going to waste everyone's time.

If we could depend on women signing up for the "advanced classes" being .5 NTRP higher than the average male, then there would be no issue. The problem is you have 60 year old 4.0 women signing up for classes with 4.0/4.5 men and juniors in them. They will NOT be able to hang. The same issue would appear if someone signed up their 10 year old children for the class.

This is not a rant against women. Most people do not hear about the complaining regarding stuff like skill being too high/low for paid classes. No one will complain about skill in an "open" tournament, or during a private lesson.

If people complain about you, drop down a level, play up to open, or take a private lesson. As far as "hitting just as hard as the men", there's a lot more to it than that. There's spin, consistency, accuracy, movement, ect. all of which apply when taking a lesson. If the lady in question was actually hitting just as good as the men, I don't see why the instructor would tell her to leave. I can see the instructor telling her she has to leave if she thinks she's just as good, but actually isnt.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I have seen this issue come up time and again. The only women that I have seen hit with similar pace, spin, accuracy, etc as solid 4.0 men are solid 5.0 women, not even 4.5 women. This is why clinics are gendered. Solid 5.0 women are rare. 4.0 men are common. If a challenger level woman wanted in that clinic, I have a feeling they would make an exception. But as the saying goes, “challenger level women ain’t walking out of that tunnel”.

 

[Vilgan]

Instructor didn't ask her to leave, they didn't allow her to participate at all. FWIW, this was a 3.0 level class. We've since found 3.5 level unrestricted classes and she has comfortably been in the top half. She hits it right in the middle (not as hard as me and one other guy, but stronger than everyone else) and gets to everything. That said, even though its advertised as 3.5 I would consider most people to be upper half USTA 3.0s from my experience playing league this year.

I guess I don't really get the focus on a number. We hadn't played any tournaments or anything so she didn't have an official rating, but she's a comfortable USTA 3.0 Men's (which I guess would make her a 3.5 women's?) so why not let her compete in men's events at the 3.0 level? Its all self rated right now anyway. If she plays a women's event then she can play 3.5.

When playing for fun early on, the main thing seems to be finding fun matches. Women tend to moonball more and she has more fun playing with men and then we can also play dubs together more often. At the GLTA tournament there were women playing in the men's divisions at all levels (including open) and everyone had fun. Watching the woman who was playing open against the men (and winning!) was pretty incredible and she hit it harder than any other man I saw play in open. I guess I just wish the USTA was more open and flexible like that instead of being so rigid. The UTR tournaments sound interesting but there also don't appear to be any in the Seattle area coming up.

 

[Vilgan]

The 4.0 man is like a 5.0 woman is also interesting to me, since the 5.0C woman I saw at the GLTA tournament would annihilate any 4.0 man I've ever seen. She took the man who ended up winning the tournament to two tie breaks in the semi's after winning several matches including overpowering a male rated as a 4.5C and a high one at that according to TR.

 

[penpal]

I've argued in the past for gender-neutral ratings that would allow for leagues where competitive matches could take place between men and women. I still believe that something like this could work, but I will admit that I'm less convinced then I once was, based on an experiment I tried at our club.

I put together a group of men and women to play in a permanent court time. The women were all 4.5s and the men mostly lower-level 4.0s. We had two courts and the original idea was to mix-and-match randomly. So, there might be 3 women and 1 men on one court, and 2Mx2W on the other - or what have you. Basically, it wouldn't matter what the mix of men and women because we were all relatively similar in ability.

That concept was too outside of the norms for everyone to get on board with, so we ended up playing Mens and Womens doubles one week, then on the alternate week we would play MxD on both courts.

In the end, it worked out ok, but what I discovered that I didn't expect is that the men really liked playing with the women, but several of the women didn't want to play with the men.

The men were initially a bit taken aback playing with women who were as good as these women were. I think that's because, most of the time when playing MxD, the man is easily the stronger partner. But with lower-level 4.0 guys and good 4.5 women, the discrepancy wasn't there. After the first couple of MxD weeks, the men were all commenting how good these women were, and how much fun it was to play with them.

The women also seemed to enjoy the level of play, but some (not all) of them seemed to feel uncomfortable playing in a group that included men. It was clear that, by having the men around, these women felt like they had lost the "women's night" social aspect. As the season went on, some of them outright asked if we could discontinue the MxD and just play Men's and Women's doubles every week.

Honestly, I had overlooked the social component when I had advocated for gender-neutral ratings previously. And I would have expected that the men would have more issues with the setup than the women. I still think there is a place for gender-neutral play, but I don't know for sure how many women would actually cross-over and continue playing with/against men long-term.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

The 4.0 man is like a 5.0 woman is also interesting to me, since the 5.0C woman I saw at the GLTA tournament would annihilate any 4.0 man I've ever seen. She took the man who ended up winning the tournament to two tie breaks in the semi's after winning several matches including overpowering a male rated as a 4.5C and a high one at that according to TR.

Any 4.0 man you’ve seen? How many have you seen? I’m not talking about the barely 4.0 old men who maintain their rating by playing 55+ only.

 

[gmatheis]

The 4.0 man is like a 5.0 woman is also interesting to me, since the 5.0C woman I saw at the GLTA tournament would annihilate any 4.0 man I've ever seen. She took the man who ended up winning the tournament to two tie breaks in the semi's after winning several matches including overpowering a male rated as a 4.5C and a high one at that according to TR.

There are always exceptions, but most of the time a woman's level is about equal to a man somewhere from 0.5 to 1.0 below her.

Not sure why, seems like a 4.0 should be a 4.0 regardless of gender, but perhaps they didn't want to have so many women playing at 2.5 and 3.0 because they feel less women will play if they do the ratings that way.

It seems UTR is trying to address this … but it's several years away from seeing if it will be successful or not.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Gender is going to disappear as a concept in rec sports pretty soon, I think.

People will get used to it soon enough.

I have played clinics where men participate with women. Some women complain that the men hit the ball too hard and are wild, and there is truth in that. Still, I have as much sympathy for that as I would if the guys claimed the women lobbed too much. Just hit the ball already.

 

[5sets]

This.

Exactly. I participated in a co-ed 4.0 plus Live Ball 'Advanced' Clinic months ago and while some sessions were a blast when a true 4.5ish/low 5.0 woman showed up others felt like a waste of time and money when a 3.5 lady came.

If you can't hang, please don't show up the next week as a courtesy to others. Even if the club allows it.

It's because people pay money for these classes, they want similarly skilled players to hit with. People complain to the head pro about skill disparity, then the head pro chews out the instructor of the class. I've seen a club pro tell a 65 year old 4.0 man that he better be a good 4.0 or else he's going to waste everyone's time.

If we could depend on women signing up for the "advanced classes" being .5 NTRP higher than the average male, then there would be no issue. The problem is you have 60 year old 4.0 women signing up for classes with 4.0/4.5 men and juniors in them. They will NOT be able to hang. The same issue would appear if someone signed up their 10 year old children for the class.

This is not a rant against women. Most people do not hear about the complaining regarding stuff like skill being too high/low for paid classes. No one will complain about skill in an "open" tournament, or during a private lesson.

If people complain about you, drop down a level, play up to open, or take a private lesson. As far as "hitting just as hard as the men", there's a lot more to it than that. There's spin, consistency, accuracy, movement, ect. all of which apply when taking a lesson. If the lady in question was actually hitting just as good as the men, I don't see why the instructor would tell her to leave. I can see the instructor telling her she has to leave if she thinks she's just as good, but actually isnt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

 

[WildVolley]

No, USTA splits based on gender. A biological male who lives as a female plays in women's divisions (and vice versa).

Here's the USTA's policy from online.

https://www.usta.com/en/home/about-usta/who-we-are/national/transgender-inclusion-policy.html

It isn't based on "gender" as generally defined in California Universities, etc. Biological men who want to play women's have to both declare and be receiving hormone therapy (probably need a doctor's note).

On the other hand, a woman (biology) who wants to play as a man doesn't need to do anything beyond declaring to be a man (after the declaration you can't change your categorization for 4 years). So a woman who declares herself to be a man would be precluded from playing in women's league for 4-years.

In short, USTA league is still primarily a sex-segregated with a small exception for those who claim to be transgendered. As far as I can tell, it doesn't deal with the growing number of people who claim to be "non-binary" or a bunch of other "genders" that I don't understand.

 

[WildVolley]

Gender is going to disappear as a concept in rec sports pretty soon, I think.

People will get used to it soon enough.
...

I don't see any evidence of this. Is anyone seriously proposing to get rid of men's and women's league?

 

[OnTheLine]

Here's the USTA's policy from online.

https://www.usta.com/en/home/about-usta/who-we-are/national/transgender-inclusion-policy.html

It isn't based on "gender" as generally defined in California Universities, etc. Biological men who want to play women's have to both declare and be receiving hormone therapy (probably need a doctor's note).

On the other hand, a woman (biology) who wants to play as a man doesn't need to do anything beyond declaring to be a man (after the declaration you can't change your categorization for 4 years). So a woman who declares herself to be a man would be precluded from playing in women's league for 4-years.

In short, USTA league is still primarily a sex-segregated with a small exception for those who claim to be transgendered. As far as I can tell, it doesn't deal with the growing number of people who claim to be "non-binary" or a bunch of other "genders" that I don't understand.

Again, not exactly. What you are quoting above is for those competing in USTA professional events. Read further down for league and rec tournaments as quoted here:

C. League and Recreational Competition
On the league and recreational side of the equation, the USTA takes the position that we do not require confirmations of any of these items. Above all, we do not want to be an obstacle to recreational participation. We seek to respect all backgrounds, lifestyles and personal choices, and we take it on faith that players who compete under these rules are doing so not to gain a competitive advantage, but to enjoy participating in a manner in which they are comfortable.

 

[WildVolley]

Again, not exactly. What you are quoting above is for those competing in USTA professional events. Read further down for league and rec tournaments as quoted here:

C. League and Recreational Competition
On the league and recreational side of the equation, the USTA takes the position that we do not require confirmations of any of these items. Above all, we do not want to be an obstacle to recreational participation. We seek to respect all backgrounds, lifestyles and personal choices, and we take it on faith that players who compete under these rules are doing so not to gain a competitive advantage, but to enjoy participating in a manner in which they are comfortable.

Good catch. So the rules already allow you to play in either league now.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I don't see any evidence of this. Is anyone seriously proposing to get rid of men's and women's league?

I think we are approaching a place in sport and society generally where gender is a more fluid concept than in the past. Witness the issues in track and field in attempting to define who is a woman by testosterone levels. It's less black and white than we once thought.

 

[WildVolley]

I think we are approaching a place in sport and society generally where gender is a more fluid concept than in the past. Witness the issues in track and field in attempting to define who is a woman by testosterone levels. It's less black and white than we once thought.

I think "gender" is far less fluid and unclear than those with ideological motivations are trying to make it. In large scale surveys I've seen, well over 99% of the population assert that their "gender" is the same as their sex. I'm not sure that this holds up with younger people today. But in social science, a 99% correlation basically makes something a law.

The high testosterone levels of women Olympic athletes are almost all due to anabolic steroid use. However, there are a few legitimate cases, such as the famous African 800-meter runner who appears to not be a cheater but instead actually intersex. Intersex people do exist, but the conditions are rare. I'm not sure there is an easy way to deal with those rare cases. The vast majority of people who are talking about having a different gender than their sex are not intersex.

Tennis has a weird history because of a judge allowing Renee Richards to compete in the WTA. I still do not think that was a fair decision. Imagine if Karlovic claimed to actually be a woman. Even if he was given hormones to drop his test-level, he would destroy the rest of the professional women in tennis. I don't see how that could be at all fair.

 

[darkhorse]

Gender is going to disappear as a concept in rec sports pretty soon, I think.

People will get used to it soon enough.

I have played clinics where men participate with women. Some women complain that the men hit the ball too hard and are wild, and there is truth in that. Still, I have as much sympathy for that as I would if the guys claimed the women lobbed too much. Just hit the ball already.

It really only exists in tennis and golf as it is. Every hockey league I've played in as an adult is co-ed. I've also never been to a men's only drill session/clinic, and I've never had a problem with co-ed drills.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think "gender" is far less fluid and unclear than those with ideological motivations are trying to make it. In large scale surveys I've seen, well over 99% of the population assert that their "gender" is the same as their sex. I'm not sure that this holds up with younger people today. But in social science, a 99% correlation basically makes something a law.

Oh, I dunno. Back in the day, people believed that homosexuality was rare. Now we know better.

I'm sure we as a society will figure out gender also.

And the only clinics I have been in that are "ladies only" have been in the daytime. And I would bet if a man objected, the clubs would change their practices.

 

[WildVolley]

Oh, I dunno. Back in the day, people believed that homosexuality was rare. Now we know better.

I'm sure we as a society will figure out gender also.

You may be demonstrating what social scientists have noticed: people tend to be really bad with numbers and estimating percentages.

When I was young, we were told that 1-in-10 were homosexual. When we actually ask people to self-identify today, the number is much less than that (usually less than 2.5%). Of course, some people could be in the closet. But the general belief is as the stigma has decreased people will be more willing to be honest.

Instead as media depictions of homosexuality have increased, people when surveyed are convinced that a large % of the population is homosexual. Many surveys find people may be over-estimating by 10x the number that actually self identify.

https://www.statista.com/topics/1249/homosexuality/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

 

[Cindysphinx]

OK, so the gallup article you cite is from 2002. A lot has changed since then, no?

The other article does not have a date (that I could find quickly), but it talks about how gay marriage may become legal in the future. Which suggests it is kind of old.

But hey. If you want to believe there aren't a lot of gay people around, go ahead. I think the point is not whether there are "a lot" of gay or trans people around. The point is that we have a moral obligation to accept them into every aspect of society, including sports. Protecting the rights of those who are outnumbered (e.g. racial minorities, those with disabilities, sexual orientation) is essential in the U.S.

 

[BallBag]

The match play opportunities are pretty slim for 4.5+ rated women so having a coed league would be great for them. I wouldn't mind playing someone new either. There's 18+ and 40+ and 55+ and 75+ leagues so one more league isn't a big ask.
As far as the social aspect of league, its pretty much gone for me. I get an email on where and when to show up, I play my match, text my result to the captain and go home. This is the situation in my current section. I used to play in a mid-west club where the ladies would bring box wine and cheese plates to their matches and the guys would bring beer and more beer to theirs. The ladies had their circle on their nights and we had one on our nights. I can see how mixing that up would not be appealing to everyone but where I'm playing now it would work.

@Cindysphinx I believe I'm in your local area. We have a men's 4.0 singles league that is struggling for numbers. Sounds like you know your way around the local league-scape, do you know any 4.5 ladies that might be interested? I can contact all the captains and the coordinator to see if we can make it work.

 

[Cindysphinx]

The match play opportunities are pretty slim for 4.5+ rated women so having a coed league would be great for them. I wouldn't mind playing someone new either. There's 18+ and 40+ and 55+ and 75+ leagues so one more league isn't a big ask.
As far as the social aspect of league, its pretty much gone for me. I get an email on where and when to show up, I play my match, text my result to the captain and go home. This is the situation in my current section. I used to play in a mid-west club where the ladies would bring box wine and cheese plates to their matches and the guys would bring beer and more beer to theirs. The ladies had their circle on their nights and we had one on our nights. I can see how mixing that up would not be appealing to everyone but where I'm playing now it would work.

@Cindysphinx I believe I'm in your local area. We have a men's 4.0 singles league that is struggling for numbers. Sounds like you know your way around the local league-scape, do you know any 4.5 ladies that might be interested? I can contact all the captains and the coordinator to see if we can make it work.

Ah, sorry. I've never played 4.5, and the ladies who are that level wouldn't take my calls!

 

[WildVolley]

OK, so the gallup article you cite is from 2002. A lot has changed since then, no?

Yes, I think I've seen polling showing that young people believe as many as 1-in-4 people are homosexual while I haven't seen any data to suggest that the % of the population that self-identifies has grown.

The other change is that the trans thing is really popular right now. I hear some young people say things like "I'm non-binary."

But hey. If you want to believe there aren't a lot of gay people around, go ahead. I think the point is not whether there are "a lot" of gay or trans people around. The point is that we have a moral obligation to accept them into every aspect of society, including sports. Protecting the rights of those who are outnumbered (e.g. racial minorities, those with disabilities, sexual orientation) is essential in the U.S.

OK. You seem to miss my point.

To simplify, I don't think there is any popular movement among tennis players to end segregation of competition by sex. That's about it. I just find the argument that because there is a tiny fraction of the population that is trans we should pretend that athletic differences between men and women don't exist to be extremely weak.

I haven't noticed anyone in league calling for an end to having men's and women's teams. Ultimately at the level I'm currently playing, it wouldn't make much of a difference because there'd be very few women players in any case.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if ending sex segregated leagues might cause fewer people to play. At least in my area, most rec-tennis isn't segregated in terms of meet-ups. I play league because I want to get higher-level, more consistent competition.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Ok. Based on what I read here, there are many people who would like there to be one rating system for USTA rather than two. It is not only a trans issue.

Also, I don’t think that the argument is that there are no differences between men and women. The argument is that having only two categories leaves some people out, and we have to figure out how to accommodate them insports.

Lastly, it might not be best to say that someone who says they are non-binary is saying that because it is popular. It is more likely they are saying that because it is true.

 

[OrangePower]

To simplify, I don't think there is any popular movement among tennis players to end segregation of competition by sex. That's about it. I just find the argument that because there is a tiny fraction of the population that is trans we should pretend that athletic differences between men and women don't exist to be extremely weak.

I haven't noticed anyone in league calling for an end to having men's and women's teams. Ultimately at the level I'm currently playing, it wouldn't make much of a difference because there'd be very few women players in any case.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if ending sex segregated leagues might cause fewer people to play. At least in my area, most rec-tennis isn't segregated in terms of meet-ups. I play league because I want to get higher-level, more consistent competition.

I think we should differentiate between 'open' level competition vs 'handicap' level competition.

Open-level competition is trickier since often there are some significant stakes in play. But that's not the situation that we rec players are in. We play based on NTRP-level (or equivalent). So regardless of what athletic differences may exist between men and women, if players were grouped into levels such that players within a level are competitive with one another, then I don't see why sex or gender needs to be a factor, at least not from a tennis perspective.

The problem with NTRP specifically is that level x for men is not absolutely equivalent to level x for women. So instead think a rating scale that is gender neutral like UTR, or consider male NTRP x = female NTRP y and adjust accordingly. You might have fewer women at higher levels, but again who cares - whatever level you are in, you would face good competition of a similar level, regardless of sex / gender.

Ultimately I think that segregating by sex at the rec level for 'handicap' play is about not rocking the boat, going with what people are used to and is traditional, and perhaps because it allows men and women to socialize in gender-specific groups. I don't think it's required in order to address differences in ability between men and women since the handicap system can already do that.

 

[sureshs]

I think men are afraid of losing to women. Many club men, including 4.5s who mainly play doubles, are not fit, foot fault half the time, have an unsteady backhand, and tend to overhit. A fit and consistent 3.5 woman can beat them. Lot of women are doing gym and yoga these days and eating healthy, while men still have not given up their passion for fried foods and alcohol. Making the men hit one more ball will send them in a downward spiral. I think that is the real reason they don't want to play women.

 

[WildVolley]

...
Ultimately I think that segregating by sex at the rec level for 'handicap' play is about not rocking the boat, going with what people are used to and is traditional, and perhaps because it allows men and women to socialize in gender-specific groups. I don't think it's required in order to address differences in ability between men and women since the handicap system can already do that.

It will be interesting to see how well UTR handicaps between the sexes. Obviously the more matches between men and women that are played, the more accurate the system could become.

I think men are afraid of losing to women. Many club men, including 4.5s who mainly play doubles, are not fit, foot fault half the time, have an unsteady backhand, and tend to overhit. A fit and consistent 3.5 woman can beat them. ...

This claim seems dubious. In my experience, men adjust fairly quickly to the bunting style of 3.5 women (and there's more bunting by 4.0 & 4.5 women than at similar levels with men), though occasionally there will be a loss due to over-hitting (I've done that myself). The women I've seen consistently beat 4.5 men on rec courts were college players.

 

[Cindysphinx]

OrangePower, the only issue I have heard is that at the lower levels the men have more power than control, and some women at that level are afraid they will be hurt. I've witnessed some close calls in clinics, so there may be something to it.

 

[Vilgan]

I think men are afraid of losing to women. Many club men, including 4.5s who mainly play doubles, are not fit, foot fault half the time, have an unsteady backhand, and tend to overhit. A fit and consistent 3.5 woman can beat them. Lot of women are doing gym and yoga these days and eating healthy, while men still have not given up their passion for fried foods and alcohol. Making the men hit one more ball will send them in a downward spiral. I think that is the real reason they don't want to play women.

Why would a man fear losing to a woman? We usually have a strength advantage but the skill is a continuum. Unless you are a professional there are women out there who are better and that seems like a great thing. I play singles with my doubles partner fairly often and she beats me a good chunk of the time. That's awesome! On the flipside, I serve like a 4.0 or 4.5 (according to 4.5s) and she gets so much practice against my serve (and gets it back better than 95% of men I have played) that everything else feels slow and easy to her.

I think making social connections of both genders is fun and I can't imagine minding losing to a woman any more than a man. I hate losing and will work hard to make sure I win but at the end of the day we play for fun and playing against a woman who can beat you is just another great experience and an opportunity to get better.

 

[NTRPolice]

We just ran into this issue in our volleyball league. There is a biologically born male who is playing as a female in a co-ed league.

She is legitimately trying to live her life as a woman, so there is no issue of her trying to "take advantage" by pretending and whatnot.

They said she would be allowed to play as a woman, but only if she is not the "determining factor" for wins. I'm not even sure what "determining factor" means, but she is definitely more muscular and athletic than every other woman in the league. She can touch the tip of the antenna on a women's net, which is about 10' in height. She's 5'10", so much shorter than D1 vball women, yet she jumps higher. D1 middle's touch 9"6' on the block, 10' on the approach, and are usually 6'+. She gets up as high as women who are 6" taller than her.

Sadly, she didn't play the next year. Because the gender identity meeting involved all the captains, basically everyone "knows" now, so she's probably too embarrassed to come back.

But, on the other hand, if no one tries to find a balance to this, men are going to take over the physical athletics and women athletes will focus on the modeling aspects. If women are okay with being ranked lower than men (all things being equal), then I guess the system would be okay. You are never going to see a woman champion in another grand slam, that's for sure. Serena might be able to take out a top100 male pro once in a while, but she and other top tier women wont advance very far on average.

Now, for the true Progressives, lets negotiate equal salary for male models. It's not fair women make all the money at the modeling gig!

 

[Ruark]

The point is that we have a moral obligation to accept them into every aspect of society, including sports.

Really? I didn't know that.

 

[brokenRPM]

10 characters