Town Square

Post a New Topic

Why is the Stanford Women's Basketball Team Forced to Face Unfair Competition?

Original post made by Karen, Barron Park, on Mar 30, 2012

Brittney Griner is a superstaar 'woman' basketball player for Baylor, which Stanford women will need to beat, in the Final Four. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

If we want to preserve the notion of 'women's' sports, then there needs to be a genetic and physiological examination of all women who participate. Otherwise, we should just give it up, and say that women need to compete with men.

Stanford should insist on a gender/hormone/genetic test for Brittney Griner, before they agree to play Baylor. If this was the Olympics, it would be done. Why not the Final Four?

I am a big supporter of Stanford women's BB, but it should be an even playing court.

Comments (29)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 30, 2012 at 4:12 pm

What puzzles me is that the NCAA deliberately routed Stanford to play Baylor in the same semi-final bracket of the Final Four championship game. The odds were that both would get to that bracket or even Tennessee may have been in there but would have had to defeat Baylor. Did the NCAA stack the deck for the other bracket by putting Tennessee, Baylor, and Stanford in the same track? And why Fresno as a venue? Even from a TV view, seemed like a small crowd.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Mar 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

In my opinion the Stanford women's basketball team could probably beat the Stanford men's basketball team.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 30, 2012 at 5:13 pm

@Peter:

"In my opinion the Stanford women's basketball team could probably beat the Stanford men's basketball team."

Mockery may be enjoyable to you, Peter, but I am serious. Obviously, the the Stanford men's team would crush the Stanford women's team. That is why we have Title IX. Women need to be protected, as a class.

When individuals, like Brittney Griner, go unchallenged, it threatens the special protection of Title IX. Stanford should insist on a complete gender test. If it is rejected by the NCAA, then Stanford should forfeit the game...thus winning the higher ethical ground.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Mar 30, 2012 at 5:28 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Karen - You do the Stanford women a diservice - I do believe that they could beat the men.

My statement is not mockery and I challenge to you to drop your gender bias.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 30, 2012 at 5:58 pm

@ Peter,

"I do believe that they could beat the men."

Have you, perhaps, been dreaming a tad too much this afternoon, for whatever reason?

No rational person, familiar with basketball, would accept your assertion.

Men are superior to women in athletics. It is not even close. Nor should we expect it to be. That is why we have Title IX. I want to protect Title IX, but cases like Brittney Griner make it very difficult to do so.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 30, 2012 at 6:36 pm

@Karen: Stanford doesn't seem to have a problem with Ms. Griner's playing, why do you?

Also, I don't understand how forfeiting the game would bestow the "higher ethical ground" of which you speak. Seems to me the higher ethic would be to play the game and allow the N.C.A.A. to decide whether it was a fairly played game, if there were complaints.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm

@ Vox,

Do you have any idea what the set up is, here? Brittney Griner will kill on the court. Stanford does not stand a chance. Why? Because Brittney Griner is a masculinized player. The question is: Is "she" a "he", similar to the S. African runner? This question needs to be determined before the game is played.

Stanford could make a major statement in favor of Title IX, if it demands an answer. If Stanford just goes along to get along, it will be another nail in coffin of Title IX.






 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 31, 2012 at 7:22 am

If you're going to whine about something, then at least know some basic facts.

T9 has nothing to do with any of your concerns. T9 mandates that any school that receives Federal funding (for any purpose e.g., research) must provide equal opportunities for women to participate in athletics at that particular campus. The measures can be calculated in a couple of ways - factors may include ratio of women to men of the general student body, ratio of total roster spots (for all varsity teams) between the two genders, etc.

T9 has nothing to do with hormone testing.

The NCAA conducts random drug tests - if there is a problem, it will be found.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 31, 2012 at 11:09 am

@CP Dad

" must provide equal opportunities for women to participate in athletics "

That is exactly my point. If a man self identifies as a woman, and plays on the women's team, is that fair to the other women?

There has to be a genetic/physiological/hormonal definition of a 'woman'.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 1, 2012 at 9:51 pm

Our Stanford women made a game effort tonight, but the outcome was not in doubt. Griner was the presence on the floor that changed the competitive balance.

Baylor will crush Notre Dame.

Why is this allowed?

If Griner has to face a gender test for the Olympic team, Griner will not agree to join the team.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 2, 2012 at 5:28 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Look at the data. Neither Griner's blocking or shooting won the game; Stanford lost the game with its incredibly low field goal percentages, particularly in the second half.


For example, Stanford hit just two of its 17 attempts from 3-point range.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 7:42 am

"Look at the data."

Much better to just watch the game. Griner's presence dominated the game. No surprise.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 2, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

What a shame to ignore the data when the data conflicts with your prejudice.

If Stanford had made 8 of their 17 three point attempts instead of 3 then they would have won.

If Stanford had made ALL the field goals that Griner blocked (2 !!) then Stanford would still have lost.

And VanDerveer "wasn't complaining about the officiating; she said her players simply committed too many fouls (17)."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:04 pm

If Baylor had made more of their open shots, especially in the first half, the score would have been much worse. Baylor had open shots, because Stanford was consumed with Griner, both physically and mentally and Stanford was forced to double Griner at all times. Griner's presence dramatically altered the game.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Karen - don't let the facts interfere with your clear prejudice. Take Griner's points and blocks out of the game and substitute the points of the Baylor's sixth highest scoring player and Baylor would still have won. Why - because of Stanford's incredibly low field goal percentages.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm

Peter,

Did you watch the game? Your analysis is kooky, just like your assertion that the Stanford Women could beat the Stanford Men's team. Ridiculous. Griner was the dominating factor in Baylor's victory...ask the Stanford players. Your stats are meaningless.

Griner is an unfair advantage. Griner's true gender needs to be checked.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" stats are meaningless."

It is hopeless to try to have an intelligent discussion with someone who has no interest in the facts.

Goodbye......


 +   Like this comment
Posted by K
a resident of Juana Briones School
on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:50 pm

Karen - what did you say that was deleted in the original post?

Other than your distaste of Ms Griner and her size and ability, do you have any evidence other than appearance?

I have to say, I'm with Peter, curious why facts and stats are not an acceptable to you in discourse.

Also curious about why you are on your soapbox when the NCAA and the schools don't see a problem. Even then you make a claim and then request evidence!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 4:15 pm

" the NCAA and the schools don't see a problem. "

The NCAA doesn't require mandatory gender checks. Obviously they don't have an issue. How could they?

The S. African runner was also defended on the basis of 'her national sports authority have no problems with her'. When 'she' kicked butt on all the other women runners, international authorities were forced to act. 'She' turned out to be a 'he'. She didn't know it (an intersex situation), but some others did. The point is not to hate on these people, we should be supportive, but we simply need to keep the competition fair.

Perhaps there should be a separate league for intersex people. Otherwise just have them play with the men.

Do you also agree with Peter that the Stanford women could beat the Stanford men? Do you accept his 'facts' as a full picture of the game, even statiscally (how about open Baylor shots created by the presence of Griner; shots taken by Stanford that were out of their comfort zone, drives not completed by Stanford)?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by K
a resident of Juana Briones School
on Apr 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Nice turnaround - you won't answer questions and immediately want to know if I support Peter's opinion of how actual facts effect the argument between you two.

So I'll try again:

Karen - what did you say that was deleted in the original post?

Other than your distaste of Ms Griner and her size and ability, do you have any evidence other than appearance? (mentioning the S. African runner is not evidence)

Also curious about why you are on your soapbox?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 5:41 pm

K.

I think I said that Griner is masculinized, but I forget my exact words. Perhaps the Weekly will want to repost them. Fine with me.

I have no gender test evidence. That is what I am calling for with gender tests, across all women's sports. Physical appearance is a relevant indicator (deep voice, size, power, etc.), but it is not determinative.

The S. African runner is fully relevant. It goes to fairness of the competition. That is why I am on the soapbox.

Since you said that you support Peter's 'facts', exactly which facts do you support?

I just want a level playing field for women's sports. If there is no such playing field, then women's sports will disappear, over time. It will become intersex sports, or even just men's sports for those men who self-identify as female.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by get a life
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 2, 2012 at 5:48 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:06 pm

get a life,

If you care to provide your real name, I will have my lawyer sue you for slander.

All of my comments have been in favor of a fair playing field for women's sports. I have no personal animus towards Griner. I simply question her gender characteristics. Griner is a public figure, and deserves relevant scrutiny. Similar threats were made towards those who dared to question the S. African runner.

What is your name?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by K
a resident of Juana Briones School
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:15 pm

Wow. One runner and now test everyone! Talk about big government types wanted to get into our wallets, our pants, etc...!!!

A little huffy because the other team had a monster - guess what - it happens all the time - it's called sports!

Might as well accuse her of performance enhancing supplements, you already have about gender surgery, all without any proof or reason to accuse her other than your guilty mind.

Ever hear of hard training? Good genetics?




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:30 pm

K.

I said nothing about gender surgery...you just did. I mentioned intersex potential.

There was a lot of resistance to performance-enhancing drug testing, at first. Aside from the health issues, which are substantial, the issue was a fair playing field. That is my central point, a fair playing field.

Until gender tests are done, across the board, the playing field will tilt in favor of intersex and male players, in women's sports.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by get a life
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 2, 2012 at 7:11 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Palo Parent
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 2, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Behave you two!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Karen
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm

This will be my last post on the subject.

1. It is completely fair to question gender characteristics in women's sports.

2. A level playing field is essential to women's sports.

3. Slander against those who bring up the subject is unwarrented.

4. By questioning one's gender is not slander, nor innuendo. I have no animus against such people. To describe it as such is hateful to those individuals.

5. To raise the issue of a level playing field should engender a serious discussion. It has not, unfortunately, on this thread.

6. When Baylor knocks off Notre Dame, tomorrow, at least take a pause and reflect on what the issues are.

7. Women's sports need protection.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nuts
a resident of Meadow Park
on Apr 2, 2012 at 10:24 pm

who cares? it's women basketball. :)


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 2,520 views

Flirtation
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,398 views

King of the Slides
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 1,080 views

The Future of our Parks: Public Workshops this Week
By Cathy Kirkman | 0 comments | 529 views

NO MEAT ATHLETE Workout/Running Group
By Max Greenberg | 2 comments | 407 views