As a TS woman do I stand a chance against men?

Interesting!

I'll have to look that up.

 

As I've tried to point out...I'm as un-gammon as I can be (I'm PC gone mad me!) but even I have to concede the physical differences, and potentials, between men and women.
Humans aren't as sexually dimorphic as some species but we are sexually dimorphic to a degree that makes a difference in "sport".

 

Sorry I should have clarified - I remember that crazy sexist thread in the past. I don't think genetics play a factor in this, I think it's honestly down to young girls going shopping with their mums learning to identify subtle differences in colours of clothing which isn't the case with many men.
We've got gender roles in which the tasks women get passive practice in from a young age which primes them to identify colours better. (Like jamaican kids running up hills to school)

 

As I've tried to point out...I'm as un-gammon as I can be (I'm PC gone mad me!) but even I have to concede the physical differences, and potentials, between men and women.
Humans aren't as sexually dimorphic as some species but we are sexually dimorphic to a degree that makes a difference in "sport".

 

Of course. Only a blind ideologue would try to argue otherwise.

I'm just saying; humans decide how we compete in games, and the games we invent most often skew results in favour of males being in the top tier of them. I'm not making a value judgement about it, I'm just saying that's how it is.

 

I just read into tetrachromacy - that blew my mind a little

 

So we've been talking past each other.....

Phenotype isn't just how people look, it's how genes are expressed, there are average sex differences in bone structure, density, ATP etc, at statistically significant levels.

Saying that phenotype differences between genders are the same as phenotype differences between populations with different melanin levels.

When there are statistically differences in the sexes,

Either means you think their are large measurable differences in populations with different levels of melanin, or you think women's divisions should be abolished.

It's hard to not view that as either your
A) a racist (which I know your not)
B) a sexist (which I also know your not)
C) are being unclear, or
D) have your science wrong.

 

I can't agree with that point. The details of the rules and winning criteria change from game to game but it's all mainly just variations on running, jumping, throwing, lifting, hitting, etc.

Kick a ball over that line! Carry a ball over that one! Whack it with something over there! Don't whack it over there though! Throw this! Throw that!

There's a 7 minute gap between men and women in the Olympic times for the 20k walking event for example .
Women haven't been competing at something as basic as "walking" in the olympics as long as men have so there should be some closing of that gap over time.
But I think there will always be a gap. I think the gap will be less the longer the distance (so maybe the 50k event women don't yet do would have less gap), because as I said women come closer to men on that front, but I don't think they'll ever compete close enough for them to run one 20k walking event because the top women would be out-competed by the middle pack men.
And that's just simple walking. About as simple a game as it's possible to "invent".

I'd even argue that some games (like walking) aren't even "invented" as they mimic "natural activities", have very minimal rules and VERY simple success criteria.

Is it an invented to game to see how fast someone can run 100 meters? 200 meters? 400 meters?
Go on the bang of the gun and be the first person over the line 100 meters away. That's pretty much it. As simple a game as there can be really.
It's not a "skewed male activity" and can't be made less sexist or more accommodating for women.

 

Okay, well if it's any of the above, it will be D.

I'm reading that morphological differences are classed as secondary sex characteristics, not phenotype. I'm also reading some sources that include hormones in phenotype, but more that say that phenotype is external and internal genital structure that is caused by hormone production.

If you can link me to a definitive definition, I'd appreciate it. Happy to be wrong about this and learn something.

 

I seem to recall Joe Rogan boasting about a woman who is better at ultra marathoning than all men.

 

But as a society we decided to get together and watch people compete in these games. Why are most of the games we watch and celebrate as a society mainly variations of stuff that men are generally better at?

 

So the fastest female walker at the 2016 Olympics would have come 56th in the men's race.
I'd say it's hard to argue that "walking" is a sexist invention.

 

People didn't invent walking.

People did invent watching people walk and giving the fastest walker a medal.

Can you see the difference?

 

Because, to some degree, we admire or like to watch people that are fast, strong, agile, etc. It's basically what sport showcases. I mean I don't watch that stuff but the great unwashed do so I can't influence that.

It'll be interesting to see the rise of e-sports and how men and women compete in those.

 

But is it statistically significant, how to all women place against all men.

Outliers are by definition misleading.

 

Exactly. Most sport showcases traits that men are generally better at than women. That's all I was saying. I didn't say it was bad or evil, but it is an activity that we invented (the act of watching people compete for our entertainment).

 

Indeed. But we also awards "medals" for literature (pulitzer), science (nobels), entertainment (golden joystick...I've won one of those!), painting (turner prize), music (grammys), film making (oscars), making the best cheese, etc.

You seem to be arguing for not watching or judging people do anything physical at all?

 

I'm going for a mix of C and D Bob! Do I get to go for Bully's special prize!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

Phenotype (from Greek pheno-, meaning 'showing', and type, meaning 'type') is the term used in genetics for the composite observable characteristics or traits of an organism.[1][2] The term covers the organism's morphology or physical form and structure, its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior. An organism's phenotype results from two basic factors: the expression of an organism's genetic code, or its genotype, and the influence of environmental factors.


I'm not an expert, but that would seem to include everything physical.

It's everything that is, as opposed to genotype, which is everything that could be.

 

You get a speedboat to share with someone in Birmingham!