High school girls should be allowed to play with boys in contact sports. Why cant they? If they are equally strong have the same skills as them boys then they are qualified to play with them. Being physically strong requires training. If girls who wants to play with boys in contact sports have enough training then they can be as strong and grasp the same skills that the boys have. Just because societies think that girls are not as par as boys in sports doesnt mean that the choices should be taken away from them.
YESsSssssSsssssSSSss s s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s
If there's girls who have the same skill set as boys and are strong enough they should be allowed to join. Its unfair to immediately say no, because if the teacher/coach says I isn't safe for the girl/s to play then its different but providing that it is safe and that they arent going to get hurt I don't see why not
The status quo ALREADY accepts women in contact sports, specifically for men. There are many instances where women can join these sports and it is not officially recognized that they should not—see title IX, which upholds an individual's rights to fairness in activities, and disregards gender as a limiting factor.
Julie Harshbarger, Katie Hnida, Patricia Palinkas, Lauren Silberman and Jennifer Welter are all semi and professional football players who compete in the field predominately full of men. There are hundreds, if not thousands more in the high school and college level who can compete in this gender disparity in the present day, and they do so effectively.
You can turn on the television nowadays and watch professional teams of women who regularly play contact sports and are watched by millions. Rugby, wrestling and hockey are all accessible to women because they can handle it, take on the physical pressure, take on the mental stress and the presumptions that are brought with any sport. I can grab a bag of popcorn and watch women tear out another lad's eyes; or hell, a guy's.
The assertion that women are not fit biologically to take roles in sports dominated by men is absolutely ridiculous. Women can supersede physical capacities of men in many areas and several of the women I have listed above have seriously INJURED some men on the field.
Still, the negative can argue that - in general - girl's can be outclassed by guys in the realm of physical ability, regardless of these specific instances. There are several counts why this is a wrong assumption: First, being in this kind of sport incentivizes girls and women to train, to work up, to succeed in this environment, so in the end that difference can be ultimately mitigated and even superseded, but second, even if you don't buy that argument, there is no reason to reject females from entering these sports when they are both capable, and willing to do so. What's more: it has been documented that women may present special advantages to the sport itself, which cannot be unaddressed.
There is no conclusive evidence that a female present on the team jeopardizes group cohesion. There is no conclusive evidence that women are at a disadvantage statistically.
The resolution asks if they 'should' be allowed, which implies an evaluation on morality. Keep in mind that the negative argues against the status quo, and advocates to reject females where otherwise there is no problems with them.
It's senseless to say we should reject women from these sports.
It's the truth. Girls would get hurt if they played football alongside guys, and when they got hurt, the school board would end up responsible.
If girls want to play football or other contact sports, they should have a girls team.
Also, girls on the team would make for some very awkward moments in the locker room.
Girls shouldn't play with boys in competitive contact sports such as football, wrestling, rugby, etc... Because although it is understand that oftentimes a girl will be stronger than a boy at the same weight, that doesn't give them the right to intrude on the normality and balance of an all boys team. And besides, if girls are tougher than boys, or girls are stronger than they look like I have read in many similar polls, then why don't you girls go and start your own competitive team? Men don't refuse to allow women to participate because they are sexist or think that men are stronger than all women, it is because a girl playing with a group full of boys makes many, if not all, of them uncomfortable and possibly concerned for their safety.
For the most part, there's a reason they're separate. Girls tend to be a protected species in many ways, and I'm sure even if she was the toughest girl going around, if a guy seriously injured her, even within the rules, there would be groups who I genuinely believe would try and get the guy in trouble. I think it's messy, and I think there are few male spaces left, and sports teams are really a brotherhood of sorts (or sisterhood). There is something about sports, especially team sports with a reasonable risk to playing the, that lends itself to being a one gender space.
Girls who want to play should do their best to form their own teams and leagues. MAYBE when they can't the girl, if shes tough and has no problem mixing it with the boys, and the team has no problem letting her in on popular vote, then maybe she can join. But I think a girl playing a contact sport with boys should do it because she's "one of the boys." She has to understand the reality that the guys don't want to go soft, and that she's got to do everything that do.
There should be boy's football and girl's football, boy's tennis and girl's tennis. Why? Because boys are naturally structured in a way that gives them an advantage in sports.
It isn't sexist, it is just preventing a team from having an unfair advantage. If the opposing team had more boys than girls, then they would have an unfair advantage.
It's only fair that girls have their own teams.
They are not as strong as men, they get hurt more easily than guys, it puts the males on the team in a very poor situation, and their attention is diverted from the competition to worrying about embarrassing themselves in front of the girls on the team, also they now have to worry about getting their job taken away by a female.
If it should be allowed that girl's can play a boy's sport, would it be fair if a boy played a girl's sport? Of course not! People think that it's okay that girls can play because they should get the right to. But, what would the locker room situation be? I sure as hell know that a boy wouldn't be let into a girl's locker room. So, would it be that same the other way around? Probably not. So, if that's the case, would a girl have to go into the boy's locker room for football equipment? Would a boy have to go into a girl's locker room for softball equipment? I just don't see the point of this argument.
Cncfdefhghfghbhdbhbjfdsbhjfdsbhjbsdfhb vsdvd fhnvhvnv v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v vv v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
High school can be a weird time for kids. After high school who cares, but in high school, where boys are trying on a regular basis anything they possibly can to cop a feel or steal a kiss, coed sports, coed locker rooms, coed bathrooms, heck even coed biology lab can be a bad idea. When I was in high school I did track (coed in a sense) and there were lots of naughty things going on during bus trips. Call me old fashioned, but sexual promiscuity severely disrupts a teenager's learning environment.