GORDON wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:23 pm
Here's a YT video of a dude who pretty conclusively proves that women are no where near the athletes that men are, and points out the idiots who will cancel you for saying so. He even has Serena Williams admitting she wouldn't be able to beat 200th ranked male player, and also a female talkshow host who was pushing a man for an apology because he said Serena WIlliams wouldn't be able to beat a 200th ranked male tennis player.
Yeah, I had this argument with a guy a while back. He was wondering why there weren't just co-ed league with women wherever they fit in, maybe there'd be NFL 1, NFL2, NFl3, etc... and I tried to explain he'd need NFL 10 to get women in, and NO ONE even cares about the 2nd tier football leagues we have already.
There appears to be at least 1 sport where this doesn't appear to be 100% the case. Sprinting/size sports OBVIOUSLY matter for male/female. But if you run far enough (200 miles), women can run more efficiently than men.
Men are, on average, faster than women when it comes to sprinting and marathoning. This is largely because of their generally bigger hearts, which can deliver more fresh oxygen to the body, and to bigger stores of the sex hormone testosterone, which can make muscles bulkier and stronger.
Men are also able to store more glycogen in their muscles than women, which is like a quick-release fuel for speed. That fast-acting fuel can be used efficiently as energy early on in a race, before people must begin to tap into their fat stores.
But muscles and testosterone can only get the men so far. At some point, the fact that they have less estrogen on board than women becomes apparent. As ultra race distances get longer, estrogen becomes like a performance enhancer for women in a few different ways.
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:18 pm
by Leisher
"Scientists"
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:51 pm
by TheCatt
Intersex stuff does make it a little complicated.
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:54 pm
by Leisher
Great. That's 1.7% of the population. You're saying scientists can't tell you the definition of the other 98.3%?
P.S. Her writing "all" is simply horrifically bad and irresponsible reporting.
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:59 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 3:54 pm
Great. That's 1.7% of the population. You're saying scientists can't tell you the definition of the other 98.3%?
P.S. Her writing "all" is simply horrifically bad and irresponsible reporting.
But does women include any of that 1.7%? And if so, then how do you define it?
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:04 pm
by GORDON
A, B, 1.7% Other.
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:05 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:04 pm
A, B, 1.7% Other.
That works great in a world where sex on forms is a boolean.
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:05 pm
by GORDON
Fortunately, we live in that world.
Today in Sexism
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:07 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:05 pm
Fortunately, we live in that world.
Just because people wish really hard to make it be true, doesn't make it true.
Today in Sexism
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2022 5:15 pm
by Leisher
GORDON wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:08 pm
Just because people wish really hard to make it be true, doesn't make it true.
This.
It is preposterous to pretend that a woman cannot be defined. Are there variations? Of course. However, it can be defined that's why it is a term that exists and is used by doctors, lawyers, and scientists every day. If someone says "I saw a woman", an image is formed in your mind and it matches the same thing 99.99999% of other people think.
If "woman" cannot be defined, then we need to immediately remove it from our language. It's meaningless and would serve zero purpose.
She also lists the top profession of a woman men should avoid marrying: stay at home mom. Except instead of tying it to negative traits, she paints the stay at home mom as more of a victim.
People were calling PP "old and ugly". Look at the fucking photo in this article. What the hell is "old and ugly" about that? I think it's more a case of jealous bitches wanting these women to cover up so they can keep being lazy and fat.
Sure, not everyone has the genetics to pull this off, but what a backwards, unempowering message to tell a 57 year old women that looks this good that she's "old and ugly".
