More Unfairness From the Insane Left...

[carpedm9587]

Of course you don’t because you’d rather talk about the flea than the elephant standing in the room. Whatever sociological or psychological factors that are at play would be tiny compared to the large differences in strength and endurance between the sexes.

So you agree with us. Thanks for agreeing and the condensing lecture at the same time.

As I recall, it’s the introduction of the sex hormones on the onset of puberty that starts to trigger the major differences between the sexes. Before, the differences are far less pronounced. Issue is trans men have already gone through puberty ad a male and already gained those strength advantages.

Yes, it does. However, the science also shows that post-puberty testosterone and estrogen regimens are also effective at shifting the body. Estrogen for a trans-woman diminishes musculature (and triggers breast growth, etc.). Testosterone for a trans-man increases muscle mass.

Sorry Carp, but lack of evidence isn’t an argument and you have provided zero evidence that social factors have anything to do with this. Stop shifting your burden of proof to me, you made the positive claim, you prove it. Not my job to prove a negative.

If you trace the discussion, Pix - my position was "we don't know" and your position was "zero effect." I was pointing out that the lack of evidence means your position is not defensible. Lack of evidence is actually specifically why I hold the position "we don't know." I'm not shifting burden of proof, and I did not make a "positive claim," (unless "we don't know" is a positive claim). I'm pointing out that you do not have evidence to support the "zero effect" claim.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, it does. However, the science also shows that post-puberty testosterone and estrogen regimens are also effective at shifting the body. Estrogen for a trans-woman diminishes musculature (and triggers breast growth, etc.). Testosterone for a trans-man increases muscle mass.

To a degree yes, but not enough.

If you trace the discussion, Pix - my position was "we don't know" and your position was "zero effect." I was pointing out that the lack of evidence means your position is not defensible. Lack of evidence is actually specifically why I hold the position "we don't know." I'm not shifting burden of proof, and I did not make a "positive claim," (unless "we don't know" is a positive claim). I'm pointing out that you do not have evidence to support the "zero effect" claim.

Your claim:

An example is not an argument, Pix. And I actually accept that their are biological differences between men and women. I do not accept that we know those biological differences justify separating men and women sports in whole or in part. There is a cultural bias at work here as well, and we do not have enough data to tell us what amount each (cultural bias, biological differences) contributes to the current state of affairs.

It’s problematic and you’ve been running from it every since. Social and psychological factors have no comparison to the rather large strength differences between the sexes. A 33% upper body strength and 40% lower body strength difference is the elephant in the room. Sorry, but for all your avoidance yeah psychological, sociological, and cultural biasness is pretty much zero, unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, do you?

[carpedm9587]

To a degree yes, but not enough.

Your claim:

It’s problematic and you’ve been running from it every since. Social and psychological factors have no comparison to the rather large strength differences between the sexes. A 33% upper body strength and 40% lower body strength difference is the elephant in the room. Sorry, but for all your avoidance yeah it’s pretty much zero, unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, do you?

You're right. That was a poorly written post and the sentence should have read, "there is a possible cultural bias at work here as well." I was consistent with that in subsequent posts, but I missed it here, making the statement a positive one that has no more data to back it up than your "zero effect" claim. The fact is, we don't know.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're right. That was a poorly written post and the sentence should have read, "there is a possible cultural bias at work here as well." I was consistent with that in subsequent posts, but I missed it here, making the statement a positive one that has no more data to back it up than your "zero effect" claim. The fact is, we don't know.

The fact is you want to look at the flea and ignore the elephant. Whatever disadvantage that social factors produce is offset by the massive strength disadvantage.

[carpedm9587]

The fact is you want to look at the flea and ignore the elephant. Whatever disadvantage that social factors produce is offset by the massive strength disadvantage.

Again - a positive claim you cannot support with actual data and facts. We have facts about strength and physiology. We have no facts about cultural influence.

[lilpixieofterror]

Again - a positive claim you cannot support with actual data and facts. We have facts about strength and physiology. We have no facts about cultural influence.

Again, you keep looking at that flea and ignoring the elephant. Isn’t it interesting that women do just fine in more and more career fields and yet still lag behind in sport competition? It’s almost as if there’s some sort of major non-sociological factor that is an easier explanation...

[carpedm9587]

Again, you keep looking at that flea and ignoring the elephant. Isn’t it interesting that women do just fine in more and more career fields and yet still lag behind in sport competition? It’s almost as if there’s some sort of major non-sociological factor that is an easier explanation...

As you said to me earlier, Pix, you've made a positive claim. Where is the data to support it?

[lilpixieofterror]

As you said to me earlier, Pix, you've made a positive claim. Where is the data to support it?

You mean beyond the massive strength disadvantage? Beyond the fact women are still behind in sport competition, despite less and less social stigma? Beyond women catching up in other area that have little to nothing to do with strength? And thus you continue to try to discuss the flea and pretend the elephant doesn’t exist.

[carpedm9587]

You mean beyond the massive strength disadvantage? Beyond the fact women are still behind in sport competition, despite less and less social stigma? Beyond women catching up in other area that have little to nothing to do with strength? And thus you continue to try to discuss the flea and pretend the elephant doesn’t exist.

I mean your claim that cultural influences are drowned out by physical/biological ones. We have data on the latter. How can you make this positive claim, however, without data about the former?

[lilpixieofterror]

I mean your claim that cultural influences are drowned out by physical/biological ones. We have data on the latter. How can you make this positive claim, however, without data about the former?

Because we’re not talking about a 5 or 10% difference in strength, but 33-40%. That’s huge. Plus, the world records for men and women athletes appear to reflect a strength disadvantage, but we seem to not see a social one in there or if we do, it’s so small it is going to be overshadowed by the physical disadvantages. Finally, women are making gains or catching up in plenty of areas where strength had little to nothing to do with the contest in question and yet still lag behind in contest where strength is a factor. It’s pretty obvious, the physical factor is at play and has far more to play vs the social one.

[carpedm9587]

Because we’re not talking about a 5 or 10% difference in strength, but 33-40%. That’s huge.

First, if you look, Pix, you'll find that the usual stated average is the "10% gap." Competitively, female athletes generally perform at about 90% of their male counterparts. If you think it is 33-40%, then please substantiate those numbers.

Plus, the world records for men and women athletes appear to reflect a strength disadvantage, but we seem to not see a social one in there or if we do, it’s so small it is going to be overshadowed by the physical disadvantages.

You have made this assertion multiple times, and have yet to provide one scrap of evidence to back it up. Where is the data on the social/cultural influence on female performance in sports?

Finally, women are making gains or catching up in plenty of areas where strength had little to nothing to do with the contest in question and yet still lag behind in contest where strength is a factor. It’s pretty obvious, the physical factor is at play and has far more to play vs the social one.

Now this is the first thing you've said that begins to hint at an argument. However, it still lacks any amount of data for the social/cultural influence component. Your claim, I will remind you is that social/cultural influence has "zero effect." You have repeated stated that biology dominates the equation. If you are going to say X > Y, you can only do so if you know the values of X and Y. You have provided some data on X, but absolutely nothing on Y. Ergo, logically, you cannot make the claim X > Y.

Which leaves us at: we don't know.

[One Bad Pig]

First, if you look, Pix, you'll find that the usual stated average is the "10% gap." Competitively, female athletes generally perform at about 90% of their male counterparts. If you think it is 33-40%, then please substantiate those numbers.

Crystal is not talking about performance in general, but strength in particular. here.

[carpedm9587]

Crystal is not talking about performance in general, but strength in particular. here.

Thanks for that. It helps clarify. So the general gap across most sports is 10%, and the gap across strength-related sports is the higher 30-40%. So in the claim biology (X) > cultural/social influence (Y) we now have more detail on X. I'm still looking for data/information on Y. Without it, the hard claim X > Y simply cannot be substantiated.

Do I think it's possible X > Y? Absolutely. Do I think it's likely? I suspect there is not a single answer for every sport. Given the gap in strength sports, my gut says "likely." Given the narrower gap in endurance sports, my gut says "could go either way." Given the gap in skill sports, my gut says, "culture dominates." But I cannot substantiate any of those "gut feels" without the missing piece of the puzzle.

I have to admit that I am amazed to be pointing that out. It seems rather obvious to me.

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks for that. It helps clarify. So the general gap across most sports is 10%, and the gap across strength-related sports is the higher 30-40%. So in the claim biology (X) > cultural/social influence (Y) we now have more detail on X. I'm still looking for data/information on Y. Without it, the hard claim X > Y simply cannot be substantiated.

Do I think it's possible X > Y? Absolutely. Do I think it's likely? I suspect there is not a single answer for every sport. Given the gap in strength sports, my gut says "likely." Given the narrower gap in endurance sports, my gut says "could go either way." Given the gap in skill sports, my gut says, "culture dominates." But I cannot substantiate any of those "gut feels" without the missing piece of the puzzle.

I have to admit that I am amazed to be pointing that out. It seems rather obvious to me.

It seems rather obvious to me that you're doing your damnedest to ignore information contrary to your beliefs so you don't have to adjust them.

[carpedm9587]

It seems rather obvious to me that you're doing your damnedest to ignore information contrary to your beliefs so you don't have to adjust them.

What information have I ignored?

And what belief do you think I am refusing to adjust?