Gays & Straights on Softball
May. 18th, 2011 09:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kybearfuzzAfter my post this morning, I wondered if some of my views of the number of straight players on a gay softball team were just my own. A cruise around the internet said they weren't and that a growing controversy has been brewing for some time. I'd be curious how you all see the issue.
The primary issue is the limitation of the number of heterosexual players on a given team in a gay league. The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, the national LGBT softball league, currently has a rule that no team can have more than two heterosexual players on its roster. Critics have said that such leagues should not have any exclusions as it makes us gays appear to be hypocritical. We don't want to be discriminated against and yet we appear to discriminate against straight people for not letting them play or only play in a limited fashion. The opposing side says that gays need a place where we can freely participate without the pressures of being harassed by straight players. It's an interesting situation. Ideally, both sides are correct, but how to find the balance needed is the hard part.
Here's my perspective at least in my little corner of the LGBT softball universe. My league has no limitations on the number of heterosexual players a team can have. There are two or three teams that rosters of nearly 80% or more straight players. And they tend to be the teams that win the league every year. My former team that I played on for five years is one of these. The number of straight players had steadily increased from the time I started to last year when I left. My current team has two straight players on the roster.
The pros of not having a straight-player limit:
The cons of not having a straight-player limit:
This is simplistic in a way and probably not the most in-depth reasons, but then I did ask for discussion here.
One argument I've read is that the idea of super-jocks makes it sound like straight players are better than gay players. Obviously that isn't true. However, I will say that you're less likely to get a mediocre gay player to play on a team of straight super-jocks.
I played on the super-jock team last year. With every new straight player that was added, I sat on the bench more and more, until whole games went by with me not getting any playing time. I essentially was muscled out of playing. I know many players and some whole teams that are made up of gay players who love playing, but are mediocre at best. If the league was full of straight player teams, most of us would probably wouldn't have signed up. This is the environment I had in high school and I wouldn't repeat that for any amount of money.
So where does the balance exist? I'm not for excluding straight players. It is important that the league is open to anyone who wants to play. Having said that though, it's important the number of straight players doesn't force out the gay players for who the league is designed. What good is having a gay league if gay participants ride the bench and don't play?
Some leagues have competitive and recreational leagues, which helps the better players play each other, leaving the more "just for fun" teams play themselves. Some teams are rated (as are players) to move them from one level to the next when their skills improve. It's not a bad system. However, in smaller leagues there aren't enough teams for such divisions.
So what do you think?
The primary issue is the limitation of the number of heterosexual players on a given team in a gay league. The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, the national LGBT softball league, currently has a rule that no team can have more than two heterosexual players on its roster. Critics have said that such leagues should not have any exclusions as it makes us gays appear to be hypocritical. We don't want to be discriminated against and yet we appear to discriminate against straight people for not letting them play or only play in a limited fashion. The opposing side says that gays need a place where we can freely participate without the pressures of being harassed by straight players. It's an interesting situation. Ideally, both sides are correct, but how to find the balance needed is the hard part.
Here's my perspective at least in my little corner of the LGBT softball universe. My league has no limitations on the number of heterosexual players a team can have. There are two or three teams that rosters of nearly 80% or more straight players. And they tend to be the teams that win the league every year. My former team that I played on for five years is one of these. The number of straight players had steadily increased from the time I started to last year when I left. My current team has two straight players on the roster.
The pros of not having a straight-player limit:
- It encourages more straight players to participate in the league and more interaction with LGBT folks, building bridges and that sort of thing.
- It allows our straight friends and family to participate with us in the league.
The cons of not having a straight-player limit:
- It allows teams to stack the roster with straight jocks to win the league.
- The more straight players on the team, the fewer gay players on the team.
This is simplistic in a way and probably not the most in-depth reasons, but then I did ask for discussion here.
One argument I've read is that the idea of super-jocks makes it sound like straight players are better than gay players. Obviously that isn't true. However, I will say that you're less likely to get a mediocre gay player to play on a team of straight super-jocks.
I played on the super-jock team last year. With every new straight player that was added, I sat on the bench more and more, until whole games went by with me not getting any playing time. I essentially was muscled out of playing. I know many players and some whole teams that are made up of gay players who love playing, but are mediocre at best. If the league was full of straight player teams, most of us would probably wouldn't have signed up. This is the environment I had in high school and I wouldn't repeat that for any amount of money.
So where does the balance exist? I'm not for excluding straight players. It is important that the league is open to anyone who wants to play. Having said that though, it's important the number of straight players doesn't force out the gay players for who the league is designed. What good is having a gay league if gay participants ride the bench and don't play?
Some leagues have competitive and recreational leagues, which helps the better players play each other, leaving the more "just for fun" teams play themselves. Some teams are rated (as are players) to move them from one level to the next when their skills improve. It's not a bad system. However, in smaller leagues there aren't enough teams for such divisions.
So what do you think?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-19 01:56 am (UTC)1. Based on what you describe, could a team have NO gay members?
2. I can imagine a straight person wanting to play on a gay team, but I cannot imagine a gay team wanting too many straight players. I mean, what's the point of that within the context of a gay team?
no subject
Date: 2011-05-19 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-19 02:46 am (UTC)So says the theologian.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-19 11:22 am (UTC)