It's a medical fact that there is a biological distinction between men and women when it comes to physical performance! It's fecking medically observable!
Of course it's medically observable. By the time they'd be at the age to have the traits we're discussing be noticeable they'd have already been through years of different socialisation and developmental practice.
There would be a medically observable difference if you got women who smoked 40 cigarettes a day and men who didn't smoke at all. That wouldn't mean that the difference in their lungs can be attributed to inherent biological differences.
Alex, do you accept that the tendency for men to be stronger and faster than women is a reality of the biological distinctions between the two sexes?
If you do, you must also accept that even if the social conditions that you describe were eradicated, women as a group would still be weaker, slower and less aggressive than men as a group. Logically from this, you must accept that men's football will always be physically superior to women's football.
Just in case you don't accept the biological reality, let me explain it to you. Males and females are different at the chromosome level. This is something that is determined at conception and it is fixed. The male's exclusive possession of the y chromosome means that men, on average, will produce 10 times more testosterone than women. This is why men as a group grow taller, develop broader/thicker bone structures and develop more muscle mass than women. Even if men and women were brought up without gender, as groups, men would still be more physically dominant. Perhaps the social conditions you describe do exaggerate the biological distinction somewhat, but no serious scientist in the relevant field would consider it to be the primary factor.
Seriously, who have you been influenced by? I don't know any feminists who take your standpoint on this. You are totally ignorant of reality.
I don't know why you think aggression has anything to do with biology but I'm happy to let you keep banging that drum if it makes you happy.
Of course there are biological differences between men and women, but that doesn't mean that they are pronounced enough to mean that women are naturally physically inferior to all men to a degree that there would be absolutely no point in them even attempting to perform physical activities together.
You seem to be arguing this from a standpoint that for women to be able to compete with men they must prove that they are better than all men. Considering we already know that there are a lot of women that can run fast and that there a lot of men that can't, and that there are a lot of women who are quite strong and that there are a lot of men who aren't, your assertion that women are obviously unable to compete with men is clearly wrong.
I've already detailed the many, major, developmental differences between boys and girls, yet you're ignoring these as if they're completely inconsequential to anything. Obviously the hormonal difference between men and women has certain effects on their physical development that can't be denied, but considering not all men are towering masses of immovable muscle and not all women are dainty waifs that get blown away by the slightest gust you have to accept that the biological contribution of hormones and chromosomes isn't the most consistent in determining physical difference.
What is a consistent factor is that those that perform a great deal of exercise are fitter, faster and stronger, and that those that consume a relatively large amount of nutrients whilst doing so develop muscle better. This is the same for both males and females, but for the most part it's males that experience this development from birth.
I've not been influenced by anyone. I've studied this sort of thing in great deal in university and done a great deal of academic reading regarding it. I know that you aren't anywhere close to being as well-read in this sort of thing as I am, yet every time this sort of discussion comes about you always get involved and present a load of myths as fact.
In primates, what is generally the answer?
Considering humans are the only living species of the Homo genus it's completely irrelevant what the differences in other species are. No other primates are bipedal and none are remotely close to the intelligence that humans have. To argue that because the males tend to be a bit more physical in certain species is completely redundant to the differences present in humans.
So if a study was conducted, whereby 10 males and 10 females were brought up in and amongst the very same social environment, do you think that a similar level of sporting, or infact, general level of physicality and capability, would be present between both sexes?
Firstly, that study would be a) impossible to conduct and b) not at all representative of anything.
However, the distinctions would be far less noticeable, and it's entirely feasible that some of the females would outperform some of the males. I'm not denying that there is a certain biological distinction to be made, I'm just arguing that the extent of it is not as marked as some on here obviously believe.
)
