Women’s Sport is Big Business – But is it just a “Trans”ition?
“Anecdotal evidence” is often quoted to support someone’s point of view. In 1983, I was working at an advertising agency which had Tooheys as a client (KB, DA, Resches). I was told by friends that VB must be giving all NSW beers a hiding, as wherever they went, VB was the dominant beer. When I told them VB only had 3% market share in NSW, they did not believe me (Tooheys Draught with around 47% of the packaged beer market, was giving all beers in NSW a hiding, thanks to MoJo’s brilliant “How do you feel” campaign).
I pointed out they were far removed from the “average punter” and the dominant beer/s at The Oaks and Golden Sheaf hotels were far from being representative of the beer drinking population.
But anecdotal evidence that women’s sport has come a long, long way in the past 10 to 15 years is accurate. Blind Freddy could see the huge increase in variety, skill, and media coverage of women’s sport.
To put some numbers to this overwhelming anecdotal evidence, recent YouGov research found 66% of Australians had watched women’s sport in the past 12 months (either attending games/events or watching a broadcast). And around three quarters of the spectators were men!
Netball has “always” been around, but it has evolved into a highly competitive and skillful national league. It is in sports once seen mainly as the preserve of men, that growth of female participants has been dramatic:
AFLW – Started in 2016
NRLW – Started in 2018
Women’s Big Bash – Started in 2015/6
Then there is women’s tennis – Ash Barty drew record TV viewership for her Australian Tennis Open win. Both women’s soccer and Rugby Union World Cups started in 1991. The Australian Women’s Rugby team won Gold at the Rio Olympics in 2016. And Layne Beachley and Stephanie Gilmore have both dominated women’s surfing and enjoy large coverage and viewing numbers.
Why are so many men now watching women’s sport? Simple, it is now very skillful and entertaining. Also in 1983, I went to a women’s tennis match at the Sydney Entertainment Centre. It was a client’s private box with the free food and booze that appealed, rather than the tennis. Being blunt, the standard of the tennis was no better than men’s club A grade, if that. The players hit “lollypops” to each other.
Women’s tennis today is unrecognisable to what it was like 40 years ago. Today, they hit the ball almost with as much speed and power as the men – it is highly entertaining. And the same can be said about all of the other women’s sports.
The reason for this is simple – money. Whilst prize money for men is still significantly higher than for women, in the past 40 years the number of women who could play sport professionally has increased enormously. Though accurate figures are hard to obtain, around 20% and growing of professional athletes are women. Whilst obviously still a lot of room for growth, when a person has the luxury of playing their sport professionally, the improvement over amateur status is exponential.
And with the increased quality of female sport, spectator interest and numbers grow, and sponsorship opportunities increase. It becomes a growth chain. Sponsors are always looking for opportunities – the cost of sponsoring male sports such as Cricket, AFL, NRL, Soccer, even Rugby become prohibitive for all but the largest of companies with deep pockets. Women’s sport is now offering large numbers of followers, from a wide demographic background, for a bargain price in comparison to men’s sport.
The future looks rosy, right? Well, maybe not. In all the reports on the growth of women’s sport, the “massive elephant in the room” is not mentioned. We have entered a period where “feelings” are more important than scientific fact.
Sporting bodies around the world have changed their definition of “women”. No longer are they biological women, but people who identify as women i.e. males who are transitioning to females.
Gender Dysphoria is a real and can be a devastating condition – people who feel and believe they were born in the wrong gender body. This condition should not be taken lightly or without compassion:
Up to 50% of people suffering gender dysphoria attempt suicide
26% resort to substance abuse.
If people who suffer this condition were not helped, the outcomes would be devastation. These people deserve nothing less but understanding and compassion. But this condition affects 0.002% to 0.003% of females and 0.0005% to 0.014% of males.
The danger this change represents to women’s sport cannot be overstated, even though it is rarely, if ever stated. If left unchecked, it has the potential to devastate women’s sport over the next 20 years. This example of the logic used in support of transsexuals being allowed into biological women’s sport, accurately summarises the “pro” argument.
“The idea we should ban all immigrants because one or two might be terrorists is the height of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia.”
Testosterone is the male hormone attributed to muscle growth and strength– many bodybuilders illegally use it.
When men transition to women, the testosterone levels are lowered. Even so, the current IOC policy dictates that transgender women must have a testosterone level less than 10 nanomoles per litre, roughly the low-end of typical male values. But more than 99% of women have testosterone levels less than 3 nanomoles per litre.
And this is not where the advantage ends. Testosterone levels can be “managed” to a fair degree, even though they are still unfairly higher. What cannot be changed are the larger lungs and great bone density of men over women. This gives transsexuals significant athletic advantages over women. Yet anyone who dares point out what are undeniable scientific facts, is “howled down”, labelled “trans-phobic” and the far left try their best to have them “cancelled” (free speech, the cornerstone of democracy, doesn’t apply).
A tiny, but very vocal group of activists, is holding women’s sport to ransom. No one is prepared to take these radicals on and the sponsors side with those with the loudest voice. (Losing site of the fact they are a tiny fraction of all women. More dollars are dictated by the loudest, not the most).
Why would young girls bother to train and compete in sports when they know some of their competitors have a large advantage they cannot overcome? Of course, this will have a longer-term negative effect on spectator interest, which will flow onto sponsors, then less money. Eventually, the hard-fought gains will be lost.
I fell afoul of these fanatics due to an article in which I opined Adidas should think carefully about very publicly supporting a transsexual volleyball player joining the top-level ladies Brazilian volleyball competition. Brand support of “Purposes” has become de rigueur in the past few years. Though I was accused of being Trans phobic, my criticism was based solely on the fact a significant percentage of the population are against transsexuals taking over women’s sport – “Marketing 101: Don’t piss off a big chunk of your target market”.
The attacks on anyone daring to state the scientific fact that transsexuals:
Have a significant athletic advantage over biological females.
Allowing them to compete in women’s sport will eventually lead to the destruction of the gains women’s sport has made (the incentive for young girls to pursue a career in professional sport will be severely compromised).
It is somewhat ironic that some transsexuals are happy to identify themselves as transsexual, but demand to be classified as females. Of course, the radicals are only a very small percentage of a tiny fraction. The people who shout loudest are more often not transsexuals, but radical straight people. Notice the large number of white people at BLM protests.
Is it possible to introduce a third category in sport?
Men
Women
Transsexuals (possibly split into transsexual women and transsexual men).
Men transitioning to women do lose some of the strength and endurance benefits males have. Though they still have definite advantages over women – if a male athlete the calibre of swimmer Michael Phelps (23 Olympic gold medals) transitioned, he would set records that no biological woman could hope to get anywhere near, let alone equal.
Discrimination is not the issue; it is simply the athletic advantage transsexual women have over biological women. This is a scientific fact. But as mentioned earlier, today “feelings” trump “facts”.
This issue is but one of the far more complex and highly emotional areas tearing at nearly all Western liberal democracies. The right of transsexuals to play in sport originally designed for biological females is just the tip of the iceberg of post-modern social turmoil.
