It was not a decision rowing's governing body FISA really had any control over. At their Extraordinary Congress in Japan this week those in charge of world rowing had to make a decision to scrap at least one men's event in favour of a women's event of equal size for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.

The decision has been imposed on FISA by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which is seeking gender parity across the whole Games by Tokyo. Rowing has, since 1976, had eight men's events and six women's events at the Olympics. In 1996 the men's coxed pair and coxed four and women's coxless four were replaced with the lightweight men's four (LM4-) and lightweight double sculls (LM/LW2x) for both genders.

In Rio there were 550 athletes from 69 countries, including 11 making their Olympic debuts, competing at the rowing regatta. Rowing is the third-largest Olympic sport, behind athletics and swimming, and crucially the IOC do not want to make it bigger. The sport's quota is already seen as on the large side for the number of nations which take part, especially given its lack of appeal as a spectator sport and the high cost of a rowing venue. Therefore FISA had its hands tied when it came to increasing the number of women's events.

The IOC is also on record as being against weight-restricted sports, outside of the combat sports, and FISA president Jean-Christophe Rolland told the meeting in Tokyo that the IOC's starting point for Tokyo 2020 was "zero lightweights". In other words, the 'alternative proposal' put forward which replaced the men's four with a lightweight women's four (thus increasing the number of lightweights at the Olympics) was just not one which the IOC was likely to accept.

There still seems no guarantee that lightweight doubles will be maintained for Tokyo, although a good argument for them is that lightweight doubles, like the single sculls events, enables a number of countries to participate who otherwise might not qualify any boats at all. Some countries, particularly in Asia, really struggle to find athletes who are physically big enough to compete with the top rowing nations like GB and Germany - although some lightweights did pretty well in the singles in Rio, such as the young Mexican Kenia Lechuga Alanis who made the B final and then won bronze in LW1x at the Under 23 World Championships.

So in the end the FISA congress voted to replace the LM4- with a women's coxless four.

Cue celebration across the rowing community for this vote in favour of gender parity? Erm, nope. Cue quite a lot of social media posts focusing not on the gain for women but the loss for lightweight men's sweep rowing, particularly (and unsurprisingly) from many of those negatively affected by the decision.

Admittedly in recent years the quality of racing in the LM4- has been outstanding, with close races common, and the event brought South Africa a historic gold medal at the London 2012 Olympic Games. But unlike the light 2xs, I'm not sure the case can really be made that as an event it increases universiality - the number of nations taking part in the Olympics.

All of the nations racing the LM4- in Rio had crews in other boat classes. In Rio and in London it did help increase the number of nations winning medals as neither Switzerland nor South Africa won another rowing medal. But in the six Olympics in which the LM4- has featured Denmark has won a medal every time, including three golds, and only eight other countries have won medals. (A total of 11 countries have won LM2x medals and 10 have won LW2x medals).

As a small heavyweight rower myself (165cm, and somewhere around 67kg when I was training properly) I appreciate the reasons why we have lightweight rowing. It can be tough to compete against people who are half a foot taller and several kg heavier. But small heavyweights have shown they can do pretty well at international level too. Helen Glover is a good example - she's not that tall or heavy and yet she applies her power so efficiently that she can beat much bigger people. She and Heather Stanning are dwarfed by the Danish bronze medallists in pictures from the Rio podium.

There'll definitely be some lightweights out there who are good enough to ditch the diet, put on a few kilos and be competitive with the bigger guys. The world best time for the LM4- is only 5.5 seconds slower than the best time for the M4-. A greater margin separated the gold and bronze medallists in the M4- in Rio.

The M4- semifinals and the LM4- final were run on the same day in Rio, 11 August. I can't quite remember what the weather did that day but with two hours between those events, the Swiss LM4- gold medallists would have been fifth in one of the M4- semis and second in the other, based on time. That shows that the lightweights' more technical way of rowing, where you have less raw power but often a far-better power-to-weight ratio, could potentially make those boats as fast as those crewed by the guys who are basically big and strong. It would be great to see the Danes, for instance, have a 4- in the mix with the Aussies and the Brits.

Nevertheless several people with more knowledge of these things than me have voiced concerns about the impact on both lightweight male sweep rowers but also women. Martin Cross, who is both an Olympian and a good journalist, says getting rid of the LM4- will reduce the chances for smaller, young rowers coming out of university. Certainly there are athletes out there - I've definitely met some of them - who would probably never have got to the Olympics without the LM4-, because they're too small to compete with the big guys or just aren't natural scullers.

Another issue which Martin raises is that there isn't an awful lot of depth in the W4- at the moment. This is a valid point; there isn't. But in the past it's been the case that giving an event more prominence brings on the competition. I hope the countries which currently have decent women's 8s are not suddenly going to abandon the 8 because of the 4-, and maybe some countries which can't muster a decent 8 will have enough women to make a good 4- and because of the Olympics they'll actually nurture that crew.

Just like I've met men who wouldn't have got to the Olympics had they not been in the LM4-, I know women who didn't get to the Olympics because they missed out on the 10 sweep places available for women - phenomenal athletes, who deserved a chance, but there just weren't the seats there.

What has surprised me about the reaction to the vote is the general negativity to it. As noted, FISA really didn't have much choice given the IOC's views, yet several lightweights have described the result as the "wrong decision". Conversely, there hasn't been an awful lot of vocal support from female rowers, with a few exceptions:

Great news for the W4-. I suspect this'll become fiercely competitive in the next 3 years. https://t.co/YaylSkQjkX

— Sarah Winckless (@Sarah_Winckless) February 11, 2017

Historic day at @WorldRowing #FISACongress gender parity voted through for @Tokyo2020 proud to be a rower @WomenSportTrust @Womeninsport_uk pic.twitter.com/BvBZ9MqrX5

— Guin Batten (@guinbatten) February 11, 2017

As women perhaps we need to be more outspoken about stuff like this. We can acknowledge that it's a shame to lose an event, but we need to be louder about the positive impact for women. It is 2017 and gender parity is not something we should be arguing over. While acknowledging that the decision is the end of a relatively short Olympic era for lightweight men's sweep rowers, it is the next step in the long battle to make sure that women's sport is valued and nurtured as highly as men's. And that, to my mind, is vital.