Not that you require more references, but two additional datapoints/issues come to mind, one which is probably covered by one of your references, one which is probably not:

Human beauty for both men and women (in slightly different ways) is not just fixed culturally and anthropologically, it’s fixed mathematically. Faces which adhere most closely to the above ratio, regardless of the time and place, are constantly reproduced in art as being exemplary in terms of beauty and attractiveness.

Now, here’s one that’s scaring me, and one that I fear we won’t realize the folly of until somebody gets killed:

The supporters of this sort of competitive mixing, who of course start from a perspective of social engineering, argue in justification of that desire that Ms. Fox, after a schedule of anti-androgens and estrogen, will have had her physical strength reduced to that which is in the normal range of the female athlete. I have no reason to doubt this assertion.

However, as you’ve pointed out, the male in this situation would retain, one would assume, their advantages in the area of motor skills and coordination. But, for the sake of the discussion, let’s assume that those advantages also fall into the normal variance that one might see in an elite female athlete, that being the current argument du jour that the social engineers offer up when they are challenged.

What they’ve forgotten from their high school physics course (doubtful their rigorous gender studies curricula allowed time for even a simple course in physics at university) is this:

And, for the same reasons of their difficult scholastic schedule, they hardly had time for anatomy, where they would have learned this:

Let’s keep this simple, from this point on:

  • The skeletal differences between male and female are fixed even before adolescence. Even an individual who has hormonal intervention prior to puberty will exhibit these differences to some extent.
  • Hormonal intervention has zero effect on the skeleton that would be germane to the performance of a young male or female athlete.
  • The male pelvis is shaped differently than the female pelvis, for (hopefully) obvious reasons. This means that given two individuals where all else is equal (height, weight, muscle strength, both proportions, etc.) the male will run faster and be able to generate more force from the hip joint.
  • The male shoulder to hip ratio will be proportionately larger. This allows them to generate significantly more force from movements related to the shoulder joint, especially when combined with their proportionately longer arms (fulcrum/lever). Basically, men have longer levers and more efficient fulcrums. Result? The potential for the generation of substantially more force.
  • Women have longer legs proportionately, but it’s not easy to find an athletic event where this gives them an advantage, since the legs are rarely used as levers, but in the generation of force.

So, more biological differences in men and women, ones that advise our traditional gender roles that we are now told are all cultural…….and will, sorry to say, end up with some poor girl getting killed, at some point.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.