What is a woman?

Do you believe that humans (and all life) are the result of millions of years of evolution? If the answer is yes, then how is it bigotry to know that humans are sexually dimorphic? Is it bigotry to know that men have, on average, twice the lean upper body mass than women? Men are nearly twice as strong as women.

If the answer is yes, then how is it bigotry to know that humans are racially dimorphic? Is it bigotry to know that black people, on average, are faster and stronger than white people?

I also recognise that we have moved away from natural selection to artificial selection.

I also recognise that it isn't a simple case of every man is stronger than every woman. Instead I recognise that there is a broad spectrum of ability. Why is there such opposition to divisions being made on the basis of that ability, rather than sex?

Such an angry man!

I'm still not totally sure where it comes from and who it is aimed at, well apart from us bigots.

I ran a kids football team from 5 up until 16, in the early years it was boys and girls and there was a wide range of abilities, some of the more athletic girls could leave the less coordinated boys in the dust, and towards puberty some of the girls shot up as they seemed to hit it first and some of them became tyrants, a few years later this reversed and the girls started to lag in speed and strength.
At that time the limit for playing in mixed teams was 12 (It's now 16).

When my daughter started to show an interest there was an all girls team of her age she could play in and she did for 4-5 years, some of those girls could have played, skill wise in the boys teams up to 15 maybe 16 and continued to train with the boys at their school and benefited from the competition, but after that it was deemed too dangerous, because it is.

I don't know Jack if you've ever been involved in sport, from what you've said it doesn't seem like you have, but if you want women to flourish in and enjoy themselves in physical sports, to make them compete against men is to consign most of them to non-accomplishment, and as a father of both boys and a girl that would have been painful to watch.

For you to stand outside it all on your righteous hill and conflate the separation of male and female athletes, who are clearly different in strength and muscle power with race segregation where the differences are marginal if they exist at all, is retarded.
One is based on absolutely verifiable difference the other on prejudice based on skin colour.   

Oh good lord, you can't apply dimorphism to race or ethnicity. That's not what it means. It is about the differences between the sexes of the same species. Unless you think black people are not human, which I'm beginning to think is the case.

Yes, people who would have died in the past before procreating can live to pass on their unhealthy genes now. I imagine their offspring are great at e-sports.

No one in this thread has said that every man is stronger than every woman. I'm sure I could kick Stephen Hawking's ass (even more now that he is dead!). Divisions are made on the basis of ability in most sports, but they are also divided on the basis of sex. The best male athletes are in their own divisions, and their abilities are miles above the best female athletes. If there were female athletes out there running, swimming, skiing, etc faster than the men, we'd all know their names.

Such an angry man!

Thanks for describing yourself so I know that your post will be another illogical rant entirely ignoring what I have said.

I don't know Jack if you've ever been involved in sport, from what you've said it doesn't seem like you have, but if you want women to flourish in and enjoy themselves in physical sports, to make them compete against men is to consign most of them to non-accomplishment, and as a father of both boys and a girl that would have been painful to watch.

Once more, the same applies to the vast majority of people.
Do you think most people can compete with elite athletes?
This is not grounds to discriminate on the basis of sex.
It would be grounds to discriminate on the basis of ability so each person can play with people of similar ability.

For you to stand outside it all on your righteous hill and conflate the separation of male and female athletes, who are clearly different in strength and muscle power with race segregation where the differences are marginal if they exist at all, is retarded.

Except as clearly evidenced race is significant.
If that was not the case, why do we have so many black gold medallists and so few white or Asian gold medallists?

Both would be equally justified.

Again, the sole difference is in social conditioning.
You have been conditioned to accept sexist bigotry where males and females are segregated from each other with that being seen as normal and acceptable; while you see divisions based upon race as bigotry, even when they are equally justified.

Oh good lord, you can't apply dimorphism to race or ethnicity.

Why? Because of the "di" part and there being more than 2 races?

Perhaps you would like to go email the authors of this paper and tell them they are wrong:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0169328X92901658
They appeal to "a race-specific difference in allelic frequencies" and label it as "racially-dimorphic TaqI RFLPs".
So it seems they are fine to use racial dimorphism.

It is about the differences between the sexes of the same species.

That would be SEXUAL dimorphism, which is dimorphism related to sex.
That is not the only kind of dimorphism.

Unless you think black people are not human, which I'm beginning to think is the case.

Why?
Yet again you present an entirely hypocritical double standard, and try to vilify me, because you cannot rationally defend your BS.
Why does appealing to differences between races require one to think black people are not human, while appealing to differences between sexes doesn't require one to think females are not human?

Do you not agree that white people and black people (and the various groups inside the larger group of "black people") have different evolutionary history?
Do you not agree that this different evolutionary history can result in different traits being selected by evolution?

Once more, I'm not advocating for divisions based upon race. I am using race to expose hypocrisy as divisions based upon sex are no more justified than those based upon race.

Divisions are made on the basis of ability in most sports, but they are also divided on the basis of sex. The best male athletes are in their own divisions, and their abilities are miles above the best female athletes. If there were female athletes out there running, swimming, skiing, etc faster than the men, we'd all know their names.

If they are divided on the basis of ability, why the need to also divide on the basis of sex? What is stopping female athletes from competing with other athletes of similar ability?

Did you read the paper you linked? Or did you just post it because you think the title of the paper proves something? I just googled the shit out of dimorphism, dismorphic, and racial dimorphism and that paper is the only one I can find. It is from 1992. I can't read past the abstract. Every other instance of the word is in reference to the difference between sexes of the same species, or in botany the difference between fertile leaves and infertile leaves.

It is not "social conditioning" to know that men are different from women. It is not social conditioning to know that men are stronger and faster than women. It is not social conditioning to wish for women to have the opportunity to play sports without having their skulls cracked by men.

Nothing is stopping female athletes from competing against other athletes of similar ability. It just happens that female athletes have similar abilities to other female athletes.  I have no idea why you think this is somehow sexist. 

Also, you should make up your mind. Have black people evolved so differently than white people, or is selection artificial?

Trans rights activists have co-opted intersex issues in order to confuse people. For example, using "assigned female at birth" or "assigned male at birth". There are cases where an infant is born with ambiguous or abnormal genitalia, and the doctor and parents decided it would be easier to raise the child as the sex they "assign" to the infant. They know the actual sex of the infant, and assign it the opposite. Trans activists want people to think their sex was also mistakenly assigned, and not observed.

The article conflates DSDs (disorders of sexual development) with third genders (culturally created categories) in order to make the leap that sex segregation in sports is a human rights violation. All those people with special gender identities are still whatever sex they were born as.

It's a ridiculous article.

As a reminder here, I'm a trans person who has a "special gender identity." I agree with you completely. Physical and mental disorders should not be conflated, and yet they're being conflated by trans activists (and as is often the case, mostly the ones who aren't trans themselves.)

The reason we use those terms at all is because those are the terms people already know. Go to the trans subreddit and you'll see post after post of people looking for emotional support; people in that state generally would rather the point get across easily, so they just use the common terminology, no matter how BS it is. I don't use the term AMAB to describe myself, but that's the standard convention, and if I tried to work around it people would try to tell me to use it.

There is a lot of pressure to conform, I understand why you would use it if it came up.

I'm beginning to think that JackBlack doesn't understand basic human behaviour.

Of course he could prove me wrong,  I know he loves being right all the time.

If the answer is yes, then how is it bigotry to know that humans are racially dimorphic?

Other than it being complete nonsense?  There’s nothing remotely dimorphic about race.

Did you read the paper you linked?

"We describe a cDNA for the human dopamine transporter, which has been implicated in several human disorders linked to dopaminergic function. The cDNA predicts reduced glycosylation of the protein with respect to the rat transporter, as well as a novel repetitive element in the 3′ untranslated region of the cDNA. A TaqI RFLP is also reported that shows a race-specific difference in allelic frequencies."


If that doesn't tell you we need to end women's sport, I don't know what will.

I'm beginning to think that JackBlack doesn't understand basic human behaviour.

Of course he could prove me wrong,  I know he loves being right all the time.

Oh! He do be right.

It’s a shame he can’t see the difference between discriminate and differentiate.

Or why there may be cultural aspects to why black Americans and Afro-Caribbeans came to dominate sports such as running and basketball, you know where the basics are a track or a hoop, and their chances of success in other walks of life are stymied by attitudes of endemic racism, so their drive to achieve could be driven by those constraints, whereas their genetic cousins in west Africa do not at this moment rank along side them.   

Did you read the paper you linked? Or did you just post it because you think the title of the paper proves something?

I used it as an example of an academic source using the term racial dimorphism.

I just googled the shit out of dimorphism, dismorphic, and racial dimorphism and that paper is the only one I can find.

Then you clearly aren't that good at using Google.
With a quick search on Google, without any serious effort I was also able to find:
https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/scholarlywork/1124897-sexual-and-racial-dimorphism-in-bone-microarchitecture-requires-adjustment-of-the-region-of-interest-for-skeleton-dimensions - a citation from a conference on sexual and racial dimorphism focusing on bone from 2016.
http://lcc.northwestern.edu/mail/2020/flyers/2020-10-23-TEAM-Budunova.pdf - A presentation on racial dimorphism focusing on skin from 2020.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260790568_Racial_Dimorphism_in_Indians_and_Malaysians_Based_on_Tooth_Size - A paper on racial dimorphism focusing on teeth from 2014.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22149617 - Yeast vs Hyphal growth dimorphism from 2012
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10089352/ - Dimorphism of polyglycine from from 1999
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1962.tb01766.x - dimorphism of earwax (i.e. how it can be hard and brittle or soft and sticky) from 1962

And so on.

Dimorphism is a word in its own right, which does NOT simply mean sexual dimorphism.
Sexual dimorphism is a type of dimorphism.

It is not "social conditioning" to know that men are different from women.

It is social conditioning to think that discrimination on the basis of sex is acceptable, while equally justifiable discrimination on the basis of race is seen as not acceptable.

It is also social condition which leads to some of these differences, e.g. men being expected to carry more and hold more weight building more muscles while women carry less building less muscles.

It is not social conditioning to know that men are stronger and faster than women.

On average, just like black people are faster than white people, on average.

It is not social conditioning to wish for women to have the opportunity to play sports without having their skulls cracked by men.

While you think it is perfectly fine to have their skulls cracked by women, and for men to have their skulls cracked by men?
Certainly sounds like social conditioning.

Nothing is stopping female athletes from competing against other athletes of similar ability.

Just against those of similar ability that aren't female.

I have no idea why you think this is somehow sexist.

Because it is discrimination on the basis of sex.
That is quite clearly sexist.
If you were actually using ability, there would be no need for things like humiliating sex testing at the Olympics, which have caused some people to commit suicide, and others to undergo questionable procedures.

Also, you should make up your mind. Have black people evolved so differently than white people, or is selection artificial?

Different races have evolved differently in the same manner that different sexes have.
They filled different niches and as a result, different traits were selected for.

I'm beginning to think that JackBlack doesn't understand basic human behaviour.

Why?
Because I understand how modern society has been conditioned into thinking that most forms of racial segregation are discriminatory and unjustified, while they have also been conditioned to think that similar segregation based upon sex is acceptable, even though it is no more justified?

I understand it quite well.
How people here need to dodge the issue of race and pretend I am racist or sexist to avoid dealing with the issue just further supports that.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 14, 2023, 01:56:25 PM

If the answer is yes, then how is it bigotry to know that humans are racially dimorphic?

Other than it being complete nonsense?  There’s nothing remotely dimorphic about race.

The only way in which it fails is the "di" part, as there are more than 2 races.
But races are different, just like men and women are.

If that doesn't tell you we need to end women's sport, I don't know what will.

Again, are you capable of addressing things honestly?
Did I use that at all to try to indicate we need to end women's sport?
No! I used it to demonstrate other usage of the term racial dimorphism.

Did I ever suggest ending women's sport?
No. I suggest removing the sex based segregation. Women would still be able to play, they just can't unfairly exclude someone on the basis of their "sex". (In quotes because of the often arbitrary tests used)

It’s a shame he can’t see the difference between discriminate and differentiate.

Have you read a dictionary?
discriminate: recognize a distinction; differentiate.

Discrimination is literally distinguishing between 2 things and treating them differently because of it.
The question is if it is justified or not.
This also leads people to adopt a slightly different definition, where they add on the discrimination being unjust or prejudicial, and focusing on people.

But again, the only way to try claiming such discrimination is justified is if you claim there are different ability; but that instantly opens up the possibility of using ability to discriminate and place people into different divisions, instead of using sex.

Or why there may be cultural aspects to why black Americans and Afro-Caribbeans came to dominate sports

Similar to how there may be cultural aspects to why males dominate sports?

Do you actually expect anyone to read that rambling, anger fuelled, drivel?

It is fun to make JackBlack google irrelevant papers.

Dimorphic means occurring in two forms, it's binary. Applying the word to racial differences makes no sense in this discussion. It would be great if you stopped harping on race, and actually considered fairness and safety for women and girls. I don't expect you to do this, as you're fixated on this line of reasoning.

There is no cultural aspect to the fact that males and females are physically different. If it were cultural, if the differences were because men carry heavier weights (as you suggest) then there would be plenty of women in the world with athletic abilities similar to men, because there are many women in the world out there, even now, doing extremely hard physical labor. The whole world is not cushy, like most of the US. If your theory were true, then by carrying heavier loads the other differences between the sexes should vanish. Males are taller, have longer arms, bigger hands, longer legs, narrower pelvises, 40% more muscle mass, etc. Social conditioning isn't what gives males more fast twitch muscle fibers. It isn't what gives males larger hearts and greater lung capacity. All of these things are the reason men are better at most sports. It doesn't mean that women are inferior as humans, but it does mean that we are inferior at sports by a very large margin.

What I think is "social conditioning" are the ideas that have been fed to us through marketing that it is sexist to notice that men and women have differences. That it is sexist to know that the female body evolved to survive so that it could give birth, and the male body does not have the same survival requirements. Males and females are two halves of a whole, both important for survival of the species.

This^

Well, we are going round in circles but if I have it right, under your “fair” system I wouldn’t have got to see England win the women’s Euro football, Maria Sharipova play or Jessica Ennis heptathlete, as they would be eclipsed by, and their combined earnings shared by men, so fair-minded.

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 15, 2023, 12:15:09 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 14, 2023, 01:56:25 PM

If the answer is yes, then how is it bigotry to know that humans are racially dimorphic?

Other than it being complete nonsense?  There’s nothing remotely dimorphic about race.

The only way in which it fails is the "di" part, as there are more than 2 races.
But races are different, just like men and women are.

So the only way it fails is that isn’t  what the word means? Great.

dimorphic
/dʌɪˈmɔːfɪk/
adjectiveBIOLOGY
occurring in or representing two distinct forms.
"in this sexually dimorphic species only the males have wings"

Race doesn’t come in two forms and the forms it does come in are not particularly distinct.

You could possibly make a case for a specific gene being dimorphic between racial groups, in that it’s either one thing or another.  That’s a bit of a stretch of the definition that your link appears to make.  But even accepting that as a valid use certainly wouldn’t mean that “humans are racially dimorphic”.

Let's take a moment to remember that, in the world of trans people, it isn't just people transitioning from male to female and vice versa, there are inbetweens. I'm an inbetween. Gender isn't dimorphic. Given intersex people exist, sex isn't dimorphic either.* There are more races than white and not-white, so race isn't dimorphic.

JB is 1 for 3 on this word. It doesn't work for gender OR race! It only works for sex, and that means that the race analogy isn't applicable. Truly a stunning argument.

*Woops, misunderstanding! DSD is still binary to sex.

I know this is an extremely common mistake to make, but the existence of DSDs does not mean that human sex isn't dimorphic. There are only two sexes, there are only two types of gametes, and there are no inbetween sexes. DSDs are sex specific for all except chimerism (and then it would only matter regarding sex if the gonads are affected - ovotestes).

I know Scientific American has published a couple articles trying to convince people that sex is a spectrum, but the articles are ideological garbage, and have been refuted. I think Jerry Coyne does a good job explaining his objections https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/29/once-again-scientific-american-biology-and-now-history-to-buttress-its-ideology/

If you are aware that the language of DSD activism has been co-opted by trans rights activism, you should also be aware that their conditions have also been co-opted.

I know this is an extremely common mistake to make, but the existence of DSDs does not mean that human sex isn't dimorphic. There are only two sexes, there are only two types of gametes, and there are no inbetween sexes. DSDs are sex specific for all except chimerism (and then it would only matter regarding sex if the gonads are affected - ovotestes).

I know Scientific American has published a couple articles trying to convince people that sex is a spectrum, but the articles are ideological garbage, and have been refuted. I think Jerry Coyne does a good job explaining his objections https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/29/once-again-scientific-american-biology-and-now-history-to-buttress-its-ideology/

If you are aware that the language of DSD activism has been co-opted by trans rights activism, you should also be aware that their conditions have also been co-opted.

Good to know! I'll amend my post. However, the point still stands, as sex is the ONLY dimorphic group.

But what about the dimorphic ear wax!??!??

Do you actually expect anyone to read that rambling, anger fuelled, drivel?

No, I don't expect bigots like you to read things that challenge their beliefs.

Dimorphic means occurring in two forms, it's binary. Applying the word to racial differences makes no sense in this discussion. It would be great if you stopped harping on race, and actually considered fairness and safety for women and girls. I don't expect you to do this, as you're fixated on this line of reasoning.

In reality, there is no actual dimorphism. Instead, it is a range of values, which can be grouped into 2 categories.
There is no specific female form, nor a specific male form. Instead you have a wide range of body types, where an average can be made for males and females, just like you could do so with 2 races.

I see no reason to stop appealing to race, as it is useful to demonstrate the hypocrisy; where segregation on the basis of race is seen as abhorrent while segregation on the basis of sex is seen as fine.
There is no issue of fairness and safety for women and girls.
Again, the only way to try claiming this is an issue is to claim that there are certain physical difference which lead to differences in ability and so on; which then allows that to be used to categorise people; meaning sex does not need to be used to ensure fairness and safety for people.

There is no cultural aspect to the fact that males and females are physically different.

It is a combination of nature and nurture, and that applies to almost all things.
Yet when it comes to race, people like Jura want to latch onto cultural aspects and ignore genetic aspects. But then for sex, it is the complete opposite.
For race, Jura appeals to the wide spectrum observed within a race, but then wants to ignore it for sex.

Yes, there is a sex based biological component, but that is not the sole determining factor. If it was every man would be stronger than every woman, every man would be faster than every woman, every man would be taller than every woman, and so on. And that simply is not the case.
Instead, what you have is the "average man" is stronger than the "average woman", or more importantly for sport, the "elite man" is stronger than the "elite woman". And that applies with race as well.

But society has conditioned us into thinking segregation on the basis of sex is fair, while segregation of the basis of race is not.

JB is 1 for 3 on this word. It doesn't work for gender OR race! It only works for sex, and that means that the race analogy isn't applicable. Truly a stunning argument.

As above, if you want to go down the technical route, it doesn't work for sex either. As there are not simply 2 forms of humans, male and female, where all males are alike and all females are alike. We find some males are taller than some females, but also find some females are taller than some males. We find some females are stronger than some males, and some males are stronger than some females, and so on.

So if you truly want to go down this path, it can only be used where there are 2 distinct forms which do not lie on a spectrum, or do not have a range of values.
Note, I am not saying that sex is a spectrum, but that the attributes being discussed are, meaning the sexes are not 2 distinct forms.
Unless you want to try suggesting that having a penis, rather than increased muscle mass or the like is what makes male athletes better.

But more importantly, you are appealing to the semantics of the "di" part of the word. There not being 2 races doesn't mean the race analogy is not applicable to the issue being discussed. It means that there would be 2 more categories.
But even when there are more, you can still cut them into 2 broad groups.

This^

Well, we are going round in circles but if I have it right, under your “fair” system I wouldn’t have got to see England win the women’s Euro football, Maria Sharipova play or Jessica Ennis heptathlete, as they would be eclipsed by, and their combined earnings shared by men, so fair-minded.

So you deny this would be true if women competed only inter species rather than against themselves?

So you deny this would be true if women competed only inter species rather than against themselves?

Are you just having one division?
If so, that would then pool the prize money from all the existing divisions, and I don't see the issue with it.
If instead, you divide them based upon ability, then they would be able to compete with others of similar ability. This could result in the same result, or a different result.

Also, it would be intra species, not inter.

Body types are not what makes someone male or female. Body type refers to fat, bone mass, and muscle mass. Sex refers to which reproductive path the body developed in utero. The Müllerian pathway is female, and the Wolffian is male. It doesn't matter what we look like on the outside, or if there are abnormalities (such as DSDs) we still developed one way or the other.

Quote from: JimmyTheLobster on May 15, 2023, 06:15:16 AM

Do you actually expect anyone to read that rambling, anger fuelled, drivel?

No, I don't expect bigots like you to read things that challenge their beliefs.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 15, 2023, 06:48:53 AM

Dimorphic means occurring in two forms, it's binary. Applying the word to racial differences makes no sense in this discussion. It would be great if you stopped harping on race, and actually considered fairness and safety for women and girls. I don't expect you to do this, as you're fixated on this line of reasoning.

In reality, there is no actual dimorphism. Instead, it is a range of values, which can be grouped into 2 categories.
There is no specific female form, nor a specific male form. Instead you have a wide range of body types, where an average can be made for males and females, just like you could do so with 2 races.

You have entirely missed the point; you can only use dimorphism when there are 2 groups. There aren't two races. There are two sexes. These are not equivalent because sex is binary, but race isn't. You claim this is irrelevant, but the dictionary definition of dimorphism is two groups. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimorphic

This is not semantics. This is basic definitions. There are two groups. We can measure abilities of these two groups, and come to conclusions on how they differ from these measurements. You argue these tests are biased because women are socially conditioned to carry less, and so they build less muscle. This is BS and you know it. There's a reason that female bodybuilding records are so much lower than male records. Those women work jsut as hard, and haven't been socially brainwashe to just not lift as much. They are scientifically, measurably weaker.

That's not sexist. The way I've always said it is "It's not sexist to say that men are generally stronger than women, but it IS sexist to claim men are always stronger than women." No one is arguing the latter here.

We're not arguing for segregation; you understand that these leagues were created BY WOMEN, right? Have you seen any women arguing for this merging? They're all asking for the same equipment, and the same quality of life, but not to get merged. Why are you advocating for something they don't even want?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2023, 07:11:08 PM

I'm beginning to think that JackBlack doesn't understand basic human behaviour.

Why?
Because I understand how modern society has been conditioned into thinking that most forms of racial segregation are discriminatory and unjustified, while they have also been conditioned to think that similar segregation based upon sex is acceptable, even though it is no more justified?

Because you don't understand how people think,  people are not logical machines.  People have concepts such as fairness, morality and compassion.

These things drive behaviour as much if not more than the simplistic logic you are expousing.

Segregation in sport based on sex might not be logical in your world view, but reality disagrees with you.

I made the point earlier that your black and white, yes/no arguments fail in the real world of shades of grey and unpredictable boundary conditions.

Nothing you've written since shows me that you've advanced your thinking at all, in fact I think you've misunderstood pretty much everything.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on May 15, 2023, 02:30:18 PM

So you deny this would be true if women competed only inter species rather than against themselves?

Are you just having one division?
If so, that would then pool the prize money from all the existing divisions, and I don't see the issue with it.
If instead, you divide them based upon ability, then they would be able to compete with others of similar ability. This could result in the same result, or a different result.

No, dodge all you like, men would dominate, if there were medals and money to be had and a middling bloke could get it by beating women, then they would.

It’s retarded, as Razor says, women don’t want this, I’ve never heard anyone but you frankly that thinks this is a reasonable idea, it’s not women you are doing it for it’s some ideal that allows you to penalize them for complaining about disparity in pay and get away with misogyny in the name of an “equality” nobody wants.

Anyway, I think I’m done, we won’t change your mind, it’s closed, but any drive by readers will see we did our best to make this place a little saner.

If it was every man would be stronger than every woman, every man would be faster than every woman, every man would be taller than every woman, and so on. And that simply is not the case.
Instead, what you have is the "average man" is stronger than the "average woman", or more importantly for sport, the "elite man" is stronger than the "elite woman". And that applies with race as well.

The Words fastest 100m female sprint is 10:54 set by a Jamaican woman in 1992. [1]
If she had to race in the Under 18 males 100m sprints, she would come out at 541'st place. If against the mens under 20's, you would have to go to page 25, where she would place 2500 or so. [2]

Basically, you can put the fastest women on earth in nearly any high school on earth, and there would be a strong chance that she wont be able win in a 100m race.
You dont need EVERY man to be faster than EVERY women to show that there is a statistically significant physical difference between men and women




[1] https://worldathletics.org/athletes/jamaica/elaine-thompson-herah-14285956
[2] https://worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/sprints/100-metres/outdoor/men/u20?regionType=world&timing=electronic&windReading=regular&page=25&bestResultsOnly=true&firstDay=1900-01-01&lastDay=2023-05-16

But what about the dimorphic ear wax!??!??

Don't forget the yeast infection!

Body types are not what makes someone male or female. Body type refers to fat, bone mass, and muscle mass. Sex refers to which reproductive path the body developed in utero.

I.e what is actually dimorphic for sex, rather than existing on a spectrum, is not sporting ability.

You have entirely missed the point; you can only use dimorphism when there are 2 groups.

You can use dimorphism whenever you can split it into 2 groups.

But, again, this is just playing semantics to avoid the actual issue.
The point of the argument is that there are biological differences between people of different races, just like there are for people of different sexes.

You are playing semantics, because you are focusing on the specific choice of word, dimorphism, rather than focusing on the implications of these biological differences.

That's not sexist. The way I've always said it is "It's not sexist to say that men are generally stronger than women, but it IS sexist to claim men are always stronger than women." No one is arguing the latter here.

Is it racist to say black people are generally faster than white people?
As for the latter part, that is what you need to claim to pretend division based upon sex is justified.
Otherwise, people can compete with others of similar ability.

We're not arguing for segregation

Unless you are saying that men and women shouldn't be divided for sport, that is exactly what you are arguing for.

you understand that these leagues were created BY WOMEN, right? Have you seen any women arguing for this merging?

So it would be fine if white people created a league, excluded black people from it, and white people weren't asking to allow black people in?

None of that in any way justifies the segregation.

But as for women arguing, how about Nancy Leong?
https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/3150/galley/19983/view/
(Or the females from previous links).

They're all asking for the same equipment, and the same quality of life, but not to get merged. Why are you advocating for something they don't even want?

If you lived in the past, would you say the same to black people calling for an end to segregation when the white people didn't want it?

Because you don't understand how people think

Based upon what?
I have clearly indicated that I know people are not logical, they are quite happy to be contradictory, especially as a result of social conditioning.

Segregation in sport based on sex might not be logical in your world view, but reality disagrees with you.

No more so than the existence of racial segregation in the past disagreed with people opposing it.

I made the point earlier that your black and white, yes/no arguments fail in the real world of shades of grey and unpredictable boundary conditions.

You mean like a binary division based upon sex to decide what someone can compete in?

Nothing you've written since shows me that you've advanced your thinking at all, in fact I think you've misunderstood pretty much everything.

And you thinking that doesn't make it true.
Me not agreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand.

No, dodge all you like, men would dominate, if there were medals and money to be had and a middling bloke could get it by beating women, then they would.

HOW?
If it is divided based upon ability so all competitors have a roughly equal chance of winning, how would men dominate?

get away with misogyny in the name of an “equality” nobody wants.

You sure do love trying to vilify people.
How does opposing sexism constitute misogyny?

Anyway, I think I’m done, we won’t change your mind, it’s closed, but any drive by readers will see we did our best to make this place a little saner.

My mind is open, but it requires more than insulting me to change my mind.

Your just like a FEer insulting a REer and claiming they are close minded because they don't accept Earth is flat.