I've enjoyed following the Ashes and hearing a little about the women's tournament from commentators trying to fill the lunch break somehow. The possibility came up earlier this year that one of our England women's team, Sarah Taylor, might play for the men's second XI cricket for Sussex this summer, but now that seems unlikely to happen.

Still, no one seems to find it odd that in many sports, women are barred from competing in the same league. I can understand that men may have an advantage, and would have every sympathy if few or even no women made the grade for a team or final, but why should they be banned from even trying out?

We wouldn't condone a separate, lower-class league for short athletes, or those of a different race, so why women? Disabled athletes have separate competitions but are also welcome to compete in able-bodied events if they are fast enough, as long as their prosthesis or other assistance confers no unfair advantage. After all, Sarah Elliot has just reminded us that even childbirth and breastfeeding are surmountable obstacles when it comes to world-class performance.

In many sports – cricket, tennis, athletics, rugby – strength and size can give an advantage, and perhaps this is a reason to have a separate female league. Maybe, but this is not the point. There are already lower leagues to acknowledge that some players are better than others, and people find a team or competition at the appropriate level.

So the question remains: why segregate by banning an entire category of player from trying out at all? Women form a population that is, on average, physically shorter and weaker than men. People, however, are not a population, and there are strong and weak individuals caught up in a blanket ban. If women were all so much worse than men, a ban, whether appropriate or not, wouldn't be necessary. In football, men hold no physiological advantage, but their training starts younger and they are certainly paid more.

Some arguing against Taylor's potential inclusion in a men's cricket team pointed out that cricket is 80% technique and 20% power, and in that final 20% is the potential for injury. Such arguments – that we should censor women's activities for their own protection – defeat themselves. Suffice to say that male children are equally likely to get injured.

In equestrian sports, men and women compete on the same terms. The national teams are often entirely male, but everyone is content that women are considered to compete on an equal basis. They rise and fall on their own merits, sometimes literally. Women are injured, sometimes women are killed; but most of all they are free to make their own decision whether to participate. No one bothers to discriminate and, so far, there has been no apocalypse.

Sometimes, the secret to equality is not positive discrimination, it's equal terms. It's the shrug of the shoulders that says "what's the difference?" The moment worth aspiring for is not seeing people celebrate the world-class female cricketer who competes at comparatively low-level male professional cricket, but the day when people are aware that she does, and don't find it notable at all.