There certainly is sexist baggage involving women being considered more "ornamental" though.
My point is, where one falls short, play to your strengths. Doubly so in a competitive environment. Nothing stopping female athletes from doing rings. Absolutely nothing. Just like there was nothing stopping women from joining the mens junior or senior VB teams.
The rule differences between ice hockey for men and women are such that I've heard it said that they might as well be different sports.
Let's talk about Beachvolleyball too.
"beach volleyball players are now also allowed to wear shorts and a top. While the top can be sleeved or sleeveless, the shorts are limited to a maximum length of three centimeters (1.18 inches) above the knee"
As far as I can see in that article, the dress code is now very similar between the gender in what they are allowed to wear (through it is possible that male players can go topless?).
The same thing that happens if I want to be a movie star or heiress.
Something is sexist when you create sex criteria. So the whole sport is sexist since you have distinguish between men and women categories in most of the disciplines.
Women on the other hand like it, "biologicaly" as you say.
Why is it wrong to have different events for men and women?
Yeah, that is why male dancers and male dancing is non-existend worldwide.
Or otherwise said, can you prove it is "biological" rather then cultural?
You are picking a small population of males and generlizing to all of them. Most males have no interest in dancing.
Nothing wrong if you do, but most don't.
I grew up in an environment where boys dancing was made fun of and I didn't realise liking to dance is an option. Some exposure to the world corrected that.
Ironically enough, that is what you are doing.
There's a whole wide world (both historically and right now) of men/masculine culture beyond the weird bland repression certain parts of the West currently have going on. Even in the Western world, I don't know how one would go about telling e.g. Black American men that they have no interest in dancing.
Quite a lot.
> Most males have no interest in dancing.
AFAICT, this "men aren't expected to want to dance" thing is an extremely recent, and fading, Western social norm, not some kind of biological fact that is culturally invariant.
Also, I had to explain to my kids multiple times that laughing at or mocking boys dancing or ballet is neither fun nor ok. Obviously boys and men don't want to do things that make them be cast as effeminate or mocked.
No, that's what you're doing. Just because some men don't like dancing, no men should get the opportunity to do so? And because some women like to dance, it has to be a staple of the female version of the sport?
If it's actually about dancing, then make it a dancing event that men and women can compete in. Tons of men dance competitively. But not in gymnastics. Which actually makes sense, since it's gymnastics, not dancing. But then why are the women's events about dancing?
This is more cultural/social than sex/biological based.
What you are describing is machismo Americana, not men.
What if a female gymnast wants to do the horizontal bar or other "male" events? And even when they do have the same event in name, like the floor, they're still different for unnecessary reasons. For example, women have music, men don't. Why?
Obviously there are biological reasons why women aren't as strong, maybe it's unreasonable to expect women to do a heavy event like the rings, but most events could be equally accessible to everybody. But the sport itself forces athletes into very gender-specific roles. I can't help but wonder if unifying the sport may help to reduce this kind of abuse as well.