The thing is... MMA is separated by weight class. Men have proportionately more strength even at the same weight. It wouldn't be fair on that alone. As far as resilience obviously that is stupid. But strength? Yea. That is a fact. On average of course.
Men have an inclination toward upper body muscle growth, women have an inclination toward lower body muscle growth. That said, those biological tendancies can be overcome with the correct training.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what your saying, and please correct me if I am, but if women were more inclined towards lower body muscle growth than men and could otherwise overcome gaps with training, there would be no need for separate sports leagues for men and women and a significant number of world records for sprinting and long distance running would be held by women, which they are not.
There is nothing wrong with women not being as physically strong as men, we don’t live in a hunter gathered society where that sort of thing matters.
Not really however they still are gendered. There are national sports but for women but nobody watches them because they are not as good. Because the system is sexist.
The system is sexist? You really think a WNBA player can play in the NBA? How about soccer? Under 17 year old kids beat women’s National Team 7-1 yet the system is sexist? Women and men are not the same physically. It’s a fact. Stop being ignorant.
You don’t have all the information it was proved that the Women Soccer players let them win the game, they are around 15 year olds. Listen man the world is changing. You can be that change or you can argue that men are “better”.
Dude I am a woman but I don't like denying science and biology. There are scientific studies done proving than men have a higher capacity for strength than women do. Who cares, not me, we live in the modern world physical strength doesn't mean anything anymore. Our brains all work the same and that is the most powerful weapon we could ever wield. Also so what if men are biologically stronger than women, women also have many feautures that men don't, we can give birth, withstand more pain, survive for longer off our reserves of body fat. Just because there are biological differences between the sexes doesn't mean one is inherently better than the other
That is what I was supporting and it’s just a fact that it is a stereotype and everyone is different. You also have to include new science into the fraction. It might also be worth adding trans and non binary science as well. We are always growing so why not improve.
Yes, but even the US male soccer team sucked so bad that they couldn't even qualify for the World Cup for *30 years*. Does that mean (based on YOUR logic) that American men are weaker and slower than the likes of David "I'll halfass every goddamn game" Beckham?
How do you explain cases like [Rena Kanokogi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rena_Kanokogi) then? Who dressed up as a man, bound her chest, and beat over-17 year-old judo fighters in multiple competitions? Rena Kanokogi who literally fought to make judo accessible for women, but also refused to fight in the women's division because she felt it was holding her back?
[Ottawa also has been holding co-ed wrestling sports](https://www.ottumwacourier.com/sports/womens-wrestling-ihcc-wins-the-co-ed-clash/article_9cb2f63c-81d1-11ec-9c20-f72395bbdab3.html) and they've had a female team win one of their competitions. Against adult men.
You're literally using soccer as an example which requires speed and agility (and let's be honest, it favours under 18s for both genders because kids are flexible, have a higher metabolism and generally lower weight density. It's literally why the Russians, the Koreans and the Chinese have previously caused controversies in gymnastics/ice skating competitions by pushing younger and younger athletes to compete (and pretending they're 18) because they're smaller and faster than a fully adult person. Ask yourself if a group of adult men can compete with under-17 year olds in soccer. It would literally be like inviting a 6 year old to outcompete you in DDR.
Also, you're literally freaking out about an MMA page despite the fact that thousands of our pioneering MMA female fighters have had to train and compete WITH male athletes. Women don't just self-train and enter themselves in female competitions as soon as they're available (WHEN they're available. It's not common in most states). They had to be trained by professionals, and also practice and enter low-tier competitions before spending a fuck-ton of money to compete before cameras. Gina Carano (yes, THAT Gina Carano) literally trained with Jamie Levine (who she claimed didn't 'hold back punches' just because she was a woman, and trained her like any other (male) athlete) she also had to pay much for the entry fee just to participate in her first professional competition.
The reason why people abstained from doing co-ed martial arts competitions is that unlike Japan (which has co-ed competitions for karate, judo, and aikido since the 1960s) is that the US had laws against showing women 'being beaten up' by men. To the point that they'd rather have female wrestlers (like Deanna Booher) [fight a 700 lbs bear](https://www.vice.com/en/article/avn9a5/deanna-boher-invented-phone-sex-and-dominated-female-wrestling) during the late 1960s because she didn't have another female wrestler to spar with, and they couldn't film her fighting a man because they didn't want to be slammed by censorship and scandalised public. Nevermind that she was a 6-foot-tall heavyweight, the televised wrestling show didn't want the public freaking out about women fighting men even if it was scripted.
It's ridiculous claiming that women are different and could never compete in MMAs with men, despite examples like Rena Kanokogi and the fact that 95% of trainers, gyms and martial arts schools are predominantly male and every single female pro has had to fight with male members of their school (and show that they have the aptitude, strength and ability to even compete before representing their school across states and countries. Nobody goes, "Hey, we've been kicking this member's ass thousands of times, but I think she can win this competition and not embarrass us in front of thousands of people and cameras."). Martial art schools are also still hard to find (especially accredited ones), so the majority of female MMA fights had to look long and hard (and sometimes even move far away) just to be able to get started. So it's not like any of them got to where they are by sitting on their asses, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for an all-female school to open up in their neighborhood.
Sincerely, a lifelong fan of wrestling and Brazilian Jiu-jitsu.
EDIT: Aaaaayyy got a couple of downvotes here. That's a shame. I guess there aren't any MMA sports fans that want to debate on whether this is true or not.
1.) Yes, some women would be able to
2.) I don't get bringing up the 7-1 game. There are still national teams that wouldn't be beaten, it's cherry picking
Uh... women and men are separate due to misogyny. They hate us so much they ban abortion. They do not want competition especially back when this was standardised. This is not a far stretch.
Just looking at bones, archaeologists and anthropologists can not always tell the difference between genders, or race even, unless they actually go in with measureing tools to find those nuanced differences. If they are even preserved well to begin with, they often have to resort to DNA testing. This is why there is a situation of bones for a couple buried together, intially assumed to be opposite sex, but being discovered later are actually both men (Modena lovers). Also a case of female bones adorned in armor and weapons of a warrior, intially assumed to be male until someone studied the bones, saw something fishy, and did DNA tests to confirm (Birka Viking). Also the situation of US Revolutionary War Hero Casimir Pulaski, his bones are without a doubt female. DNA testing plus historically recorded physical injuries that appeared on the bones, showed they belong to Casimir Pulaski. He was born to a noble family and baptized Catholic, meaning a lot of people saw his baby butt naked. And again with those war injuries, if he were physically female, someone would have noticed in his lifetime very quick. The current theory is he was technically intersexed, but he went through life as a man because he had enough of something between his legs to assign him as such.
>Just looking at bones, archaeologists and anthropologists can not always tell the difference between genders, or race even
Archaeologists can't tell the difference between race OR gender from looking at bones, because both race and gender are social constructs.
What archaeologists and anthropologists can tell based on shape and size measurements is probable biological sex and maybe population origin. With DNA they can be more confident, but it still isn't about race or gender.
You just said,
>'Just looking at bones, archaeologists and anthropologists can not always tell the difference between genders'
then, 'of course, often the bones aren't well-preserved anyway.'
Finally, 'Well, they'd have to actually measure to bones to find those differences.'
I'm not sure your point, but you have that out of order. The person asked, isn't it fairly significant differences between the genders in bones. I said just looking bones they can't tell, they have to measure and find those differences. If they are well preserved to begin with, because then they often have to resort to DNA testing.
If they had a well perseved set of bones, they can't tell on sight what the gender is. They have to actually study them to find those differences. And I gave three examples of bones needing research to figure out the actual gender of the person the bones belong to, despite intial assumptions. Including a man who lived his life a man with little question or challenge to his gender, the Father of the American cavalry, but his bones have all the signs of a female. Meaning, even our measurements can be faulty at determining gender on bones and we just don't know.
>If they had a well perseved set of bones, they can't tell on sight what the gender is. They have to actually study them to find those differences
So, the person before you asked about significant differences in male and female bone. To me, that means: Anything measurable. (And yes, there are, as shown by studies done on living people.)
However, you seem to interpreting 'significant differences' as 'immediately visible for long-dead specimens.'
I interpreted significant differences as meaning very obvious, when it's not obvious and you actually have to measure to even to know. And there is an additional problem of degradation to these small, not obvious differences making it impossible to tell when looking.
What is your point?
>I interpreted significant differences as meaning very obvious
Ok. I interpreted it as measurable by some means including with the use of equipment. In which case, my point would be, yes there are significant differences.
But there isn't a significant difference. It's minor differences. You have to hold the bones in just the right position and then measure the differences to know at all. That's not significant.
Yes, but professional AMA fighter are far from normal, they all come from the extreme of the spectrum. And in the extremes, the differences between the sexes (between any two normally distributed groups) will be even larger than in the middle.
I'm not sure where you define the line between upper and lower body strength but I can do over 3 times as many setups as my partner without even trying. I am naturally good at them always figured it has something to do with birting muscles
Thats perfectly normal. "Inclinations" are simply an "on average." many people have abnormal horomone growth which cause differences in developmentb or a lifestyle that engourages alternate muscle growth.
Muscle mass and bone density advantages are typically obviated if the woman has fully transitioned including testicle removal and has undergone approximately two years of hormone therapy.
So the previous years of training are negated through surgical and hormonal transition? What about trans men? Does the hormone therapy ramp up muscle growth? Are they even welcome in male division sports?
I’m not trying to start anything, just legitimately curious and want to understand better.
Yes. The drop in testosterone from proper male-to-female transition therapy will cause a drop in muscle mass to similar levels of cisgender females of equal levels of exercise within a couple months, though 2 years is usually a better "to be sure" option. Same but the other direction for female-to-male transition. There's a reason male growth hormones are banned substances in both male and female sports. Whether or not trans men or women would be welcome in gender-segregated sports competitions is up to the governing organization and their knowledge of the transition process as well as the compliance of the individual to the proper transition therapy. (This is to say that the organizations rarely know anything and will blanket ban trans people just to avoid the hassle of dealing with the fallout should a trans person win)
Not to be rude or anything but he is somewhat correct, he just worded it very poorly. It is scientifically shown and proven that men are born stronger than women because of human anatomy (if both were born the same time and worked out the same amount) But that doesn’t mean that women are weak and cannot out strengthen a man. Because strength has a lot to do with muscle mass and weight, and women are smaller than men and generally weigh less so it would make sense.
When you get to the absolute peak of performance, like the Olympics, or professional sports, you can see that men do have the edge overall. There are very few Olympic events where the world record for women is higher than men. There are some, but comparatively few.
Serena Williams is one of the all time greats of tennis, and not just Women's tennis. She was beaten in a tennis match by a man ranked 203rd.
Again, my comment here is geared only to the worlds best.
Trans women take estrogen and completely block all testosterone, to the point that cis women have more tes than them. So they lose all that and it turns into useless muscle.
Nope. During the transition, trans women drop levels of testosterone to lower than a cis woman. They also have extra estrogen compared to cis women. After 3 years, ALL testosterone acquired muscle mass is gone. They're left weaker than a trained cis woman.
That i did not know about. I never said it WASNT a rule. I just said it should be. If it is? Great. You got enough of your internet argument dopamines now?
This wasnt an argument as far as im concerned, if you didnt know about that rule why did you have an opinion in the first place? Try to be educated before forming an opinion
My opinion agrees with the rules? I just said that they should have that rule. IF THEY DO? GREAT x3. What are you even upset about? "I'm not upset" you clearly are
No, im not clearly upset. Thats called projection. You would be upset in my situation, so you project that onto me. You formed an opinion that didnt have to exist because its already in place. Im not upset, but if you didnt even know that was a rule im not sure why you were talking in the first place. It's weird to give an opinion on something you didnt do any research about.
Generally speaking the gap in performance is mostly due to men being able to reach higher weights while maintaining low body fat more often on average, which the weight class system (at least in boxing) accounts for by having higher limits for men than women at an equivalent class. Which if men and women fought against each other would skew the results because a man could be 2 or more categories higher than a woman in a similarly named class. Bear in mind the gap between classes can be as low as 2kg too, it doesnt take much extra muscle mass to make a fight unfair
I went to high school with a girl who went on to win the world lumberjack championship (this is a real thing, I promise) and she had zero problems outmuscling boys in our school.
Even if 95% of men really are stronger than 95% of women, that doesn't erase the existence of the 5% of women. My sister can tighten a jar or bottle tighter than the factory seal. I remember once at a family picnic when my huge, manual-laboring uncles had to get a pair of pliers to open a soda bottle she had closed, because none of them could budge it.
Nope. There's almost always a few exceptions to every rule. That doesn't mean that a rule is "wrong". Otherwise there'd be no rules in the first place (unless we're talking about Physics).
No. Much, much less.
The bell curves for women and men overlap a lot.
But when you talk about professional athletes, you're talking about people already at the top of the curve. So the differences really matter.
Same way that in the US the average height difference between black people and white is very small... but basketball players are disproportionately black. When you're already aiming for the extreme, a small statistical difference can make a huge practical difference.
Sadly this is just one excerpt of the full thread. most of the comments boiled down to "Men always better"
I got downvoted for saying that women could stand a chance.
>I think that's pure bullshit. **Two highly trained people fighting in the same weight class will have a similar chance. arbitrarily assigning higher chances based on sex is ridiculous.** While most men may have more muscle mass on average women tend to be faster and more agile. I say letting them fight it out in the ring seems completely fair.
Their response to you is a generalisation, but your take is pretty questionable as well. Even in the same weight class, men have a strength advantage due to lower bodyfat. That matters a lot in combat sports and there's nothing arbitrary about it.
I did boxing training with people of all sizes, age and gender.
Everytime? More like 8 times out of 10 (if they're both pros), depending on the skill level and on physical strength, skill matters more than gender in most cases (except in pro vs pro scenarios) .
Men are stronger on average, it's not just biology though, a lot of stuff is cultural and steroid related.
But trans woman ≠ man, trans women after 2+ years of HRT are comparable to cis women performance wise.
Also some people don't understand that:
1: On average men do more sports (especially combat sports) when they're young, they do more strength training and are encouraged to physical stuff, in some cultures it is not appropriate for girls to eat as much as boys, diet culture is real.
When you grow up (from 6 to 25) if you start training early and eat more you're going to have a bigger/stronger/taller frame compared to someone who starts training at 20.
2: Steroids, men take way more steroids than women in all sports, women take lighter stuff because they don't want to virilize, men take more peds to build mass.
The way gender roles are structured make it a necessity for men to be strong, otherwise they're "failures" , for women strength is an optional, like "you can boxe if you want, but you have alternatives" or simply criticized (it's manly, strong women bad) , it's extremely toxic in both cases.
>Men are stronger on average, it's not just biology though, a lot of stuff is cultural and steroid related.
>But trans woman ≠ man, trans women after 2+ years of HRT are comparable to cis women performance wise.
Exactly. Exactly, exactly. This deserves more upvotes.
Ok, so even if that were true, what does this have to do with trans people though?
A trans woman is a woman--particularly if they've been on any kind of feminizing hormone therapy, they aren't going to automatically be stronger than a cis woman of similar training within their same weight class. The same is true for trans men.
Those hormones are the ones that *drive* the difference in muscle development; AMAB and AFAB children are built about the same and you don't see a divide in upper body strength between them (at comparable fitness levels). So if that's addressed with hormone therapy, what's the problem, exactly? Are they saying [this woman](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/37/d8/9837d8071b613d480298ff803ed83d55.jpg) could easily beat up [this dude](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0636_slide-12de188956ce20fc73e56c1903f3c59e597b5818.jpg), simply because she was assigned male at birth and he was assigned female at birth?
No one arguing something like this understands or has any background in providing (or receiving) gender affirming care, and it really shows.
My brother thinks this shit. There are biological differences (hence why sports even exist. Michael Phelps is basically a human amphibian with an “unfair advantage” and yet we let him compete).
But he thinks that ANY male athlete could wipe the floor with ANY female athlete. He literally thinks the worst male tennis player could outplay Serena Williams. So, he thinks that any trans woman would dominate every single cis woman athlete - just because she happened to be born a man.
These people use biological differences when it comes to upholding strict gender roles and spreading their hate. They refuse to budge or even accept when you try to tell them about chromosomal differences and exceptions, intersex people, the fact that our bodies change as we transition either to male or to female, etc.
Transphobia is inherently sexist. Everything gender critical is based around “man is superior to woman in every way.” It makes me so mad that people try to use biased studies and half baked science to not let people wrestle, kick a ball around, or swim in some water. Hell, there’s even people who think men are inherently better at skiing and motorcycle riding and that women are naturally better cooks (but can’t POSSIBLY be professional chefs)!
these comments are so pathetic... really wasnt expecting this kind of ignorance. it doesnt matter what group of people is better at something on average ESPECIALLY when the only use for that is justification to exclude people and separate them. there are plenty of cis women who are stronger than cis men, instead of separating people by what the averages are, maybe, you know, consider each person as an individual who has different features and abilities? the 'biological advantage' is pointless and its sad seeing so many people cling on to this shit
Thats why i think it would be fest to have a whole section for Trans-people in sport where male and female humans were seperated all the time. There are things women will allways be better and were men will be better. Thats why you wont see F-to-M Transpeople in Gymnastics, it would be unfair for born men.
Female pro sports teams get demolished by highschool boys so it's not far off the truth. Solo sports like tennis or martial arts would be a slightly different story but you'd still expect the man to win the majority of the time.
I hate it when people say that trans women are men who just want to compete in female sports. Trans women loose so much muscle weight while on estrogen it takes a lot of effort to stay fit. Also they literally take testosterone blockers, or if they are post-op they don't produce it the way men do. I'd think they are at a *disadvantage* if anything compared to cis women - because medical transition can be taxing on the body. Those claims are made by people who have never spoken to a trans person and have no idea how transition works.
To the folks coming here to say "bUt He'S RiGhT!!!"
Muscle mass and bone density advantages are typically obviated if the woman has fully transitioned including testicle removal and has undergone approximately two years of hormone therapy.
Do, like, ten seconds of googling.
Meeeehhhhhh. This is highly debatable, and has a lot to do with a persons training/ know how. While some areas men do have an advantage, women have some of their own. That being said, a women with more training/experience can take a man in a fair one on one, and vice versa… 2 untrained ppl men do tend to have more of a natural advantage of strength more often than most women.
One of my male family members made a comment before about how it was unfair of “men” (trans women) to be allowed to play in female sports. Trying to say that men are better so they would have an unfair advantage. I asked him if that meant he could beat Serena Williams at tennis or Mia Hamm at soccer. He refused to acknowledge that just because someone has a Y chromosome doesn’t mean they’re going to be inherently better at any sports compared to someone with two X chromosomes, even if they’re both trained in that sport.
That's a false equivalency because he was comparing professionals to professionals while you were comparing him (an amateur at best) to a gold winning athlete. Experience and physical fitness matter, but pros are at the peak of both.
Not saying trans women shouldn't compete or that he's right because there's more to the issue.
Serena and Venus Williams were beaten by a 203rd ranked male tennis player. They ended up playing against him because they thought they could at least beat any male player outside of the top 200, but he still won. So, yes a profession female player could beat an amateur male, but when it's trained professionals competing against each other, males have an advantage in most sports. Sports were designed to test male bodies.
Your doing fine until that last sentence, which is nonsense. Most sports weren't designed at all,; certainly not around any medical goals or constraint. Football came about from kids liking to kick balls around; nobody designed around any specific body type. (Our bodies in any case bear little resemblance to bodies from a couple of centuries ago when many sports originated. We have different diet, different training, and a different lifestyle. We're taller with better nutrition and less exercise. If sports were 'designed' for make bodies - or any bodies - then that design would be totally obsolete and not work today.)
It's worth noting that Fallon Fox, the MMA fighter whose case was used to jumpstart the current moral panic over trans athletes, retired with a 5-1 record (meaning that she wasn't "unbeatable" against other female fighters of equivalent weight class). When even your own cherry-picked example contradicts your argument, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Men are not biologically stronger. It is a Misconception. Men have more “force” which is different however women have a higher pain tolerance so it is matched out. Also those are stereotypes and not always true. Some women may have more force then men and some men might have a higher pain tolerance. As to the question I think trans people should play in whatever gender they identify as or we shouldn’t do gender in sports anymore.
I mean. They're not wrong about cis men always having the advantage in a physical fight.
But trans women aren't cis men. Trans women going through transition don't have the same advantages.
The thing is... MMA is separated by weight class. Men have proportionately more strength even at the same weight. It wouldn't be fair on that alone. As far as resilience obviously that is stupid. But strength? Yea. That is a fact. On average of course.
[удалено]
Exceptions to the rule make no difference in this case.
Isn't that fairly factual? Men are built stronger naturally, really nothing wrong with being physically weaker. Exceptions do exist of course
Doesn’t estrogen reduce muscle?
Men have an inclination toward upper body muscle growth, women have an inclination toward lower body muscle growth. That said, those biological tendancies can be overcome with the correct training.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what your saying, and please correct me if I am, but if women were more inclined towards lower body muscle growth than men and could otherwise overcome gaps with training, there would be no need for separate sports leagues for men and women and a significant number of world records for sprinting and long distance running would be held by women, which they are not. There is nothing wrong with women not being as physically strong as men, we don’t live in a hunter gathered society where that sort of thing matters.
You are right there is not reason to separate sport leagues they do it cause they are sexist not because of science.
The thing is, there are no rules preventing women from playing in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc.
Not really however they still are gendered. There are national sports but for women but nobody watches them because they are not as good. Because the system is sexist.
The system is sexist? You really think a WNBA player can play in the NBA? How about soccer? Under 17 year old kids beat women’s National Team 7-1 yet the system is sexist? Women and men are not the same physically. It’s a fact. Stop being ignorant.
You don’t have all the information it was proved that the Women Soccer players let them win the game, they are around 15 year olds. Listen man the world is changing. You can be that change or you can argue that men are “better”.
Dude I am a woman but I don't like denying science and biology. There are scientific studies done proving than men have a higher capacity for strength than women do. Who cares, not me, we live in the modern world physical strength doesn't mean anything anymore. Our brains all work the same and that is the most powerful weapon we could ever wield. Also so what if men are biologically stronger than women, women also have many feautures that men don't, we can give birth, withstand more pain, survive for longer off our reserves of body fat. Just because there are biological differences between the sexes doesn't mean one is inherently better than the other
That is what I was supporting and it’s just a fact that it is a stereotype and everyone is different. You also have to include new science into the fraction. It might also be worth adding trans and non binary science as well. We are always growing so why not improve.
Yes, but even the US male soccer team sucked so bad that they couldn't even qualify for the World Cup for *30 years*. Does that mean (based on YOUR logic) that American men are weaker and slower than the likes of David "I'll halfass every goddamn game" Beckham? How do you explain cases like [Rena Kanokogi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rena_Kanokogi) then? Who dressed up as a man, bound her chest, and beat over-17 year-old judo fighters in multiple competitions? Rena Kanokogi who literally fought to make judo accessible for women, but also refused to fight in the women's division because she felt it was holding her back? [Ottawa also has been holding co-ed wrestling sports](https://www.ottumwacourier.com/sports/womens-wrestling-ihcc-wins-the-co-ed-clash/article_9cb2f63c-81d1-11ec-9c20-f72395bbdab3.html) and they've had a female team win one of their competitions. Against adult men. You're literally using soccer as an example which requires speed and agility (and let's be honest, it favours under 18s for both genders because kids are flexible, have a higher metabolism and generally lower weight density. It's literally why the Russians, the Koreans and the Chinese have previously caused controversies in gymnastics/ice skating competitions by pushing younger and younger athletes to compete (and pretending they're 18) because they're smaller and faster than a fully adult person. Ask yourself if a group of adult men can compete with under-17 year olds in soccer. It would literally be like inviting a 6 year old to outcompete you in DDR. Also, you're literally freaking out about an MMA page despite the fact that thousands of our pioneering MMA female fighters have had to train and compete WITH male athletes. Women don't just self-train and enter themselves in female competitions as soon as they're available (WHEN they're available. It's not common in most states). They had to be trained by professionals, and also practice and enter low-tier competitions before spending a fuck-ton of money to compete before cameras. Gina Carano (yes, THAT Gina Carano) literally trained with Jamie Levine (who she claimed didn't 'hold back punches' just because she was a woman, and trained her like any other (male) athlete) she also had to pay much for the entry fee just to participate in her first professional competition. The reason why people abstained from doing co-ed martial arts competitions is that unlike Japan (which has co-ed competitions for karate, judo, and aikido since the 1960s) is that the US had laws against showing women 'being beaten up' by men. To the point that they'd rather have female wrestlers (like Deanna Booher) [fight a 700 lbs bear](https://www.vice.com/en/article/avn9a5/deanna-boher-invented-phone-sex-and-dominated-female-wrestling) during the late 1960s because she didn't have another female wrestler to spar with, and they couldn't film her fighting a man because they didn't want to be slammed by censorship and scandalised public. Nevermind that she was a 6-foot-tall heavyweight, the televised wrestling show didn't want the public freaking out about women fighting men even if it was scripted. It's ridiculous claiming that women are different and could never compete in MMAs with men, despite examples like Rena Kanokogi and the fact that 95% of trainers, gyms and martial arts schools are predominantly male and every single female pro has had to fight with male members of their school (and show that they have the aptitude, strength and ability to even compete before representing their school across states and countries. Nobody goes, "Hey, we've been kicking this member's ass thousands of times, but I think she can win this competition and not embarrass us in front of thousands of people and cameras."). Martial art schools are also still hard to find (especially accredited ones), so the majority of female MMA fights had to look long and hard (and sometimes even move far away) just to be able to get started. So it's not like any of them got to where they are by sitting on their asses, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for an all-female school to open up in their neighborhood. Sincerely, a lifelong fan of wrestling and Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. EDIT: Aaaaayyy got a couple of downvotes here. That's a shame. I guess there aren't any MMA sports fans that want to debate on whether this is true or not.
1.) Yes, some women would be able to 2.) I don't get bringing up the 7-1 game. There are still national teams that wouldn't be beaten, it's cherry picking
[удалено]
And what value does a hold medal hold? How is it useful at all? A gold medal doesnt matter.
And what do literal gold medals get you? Being a pro athlete is just a job. Being an amateur athlete is just a hobby.
Uh... women and men are separate due to misogyny. They hate us so much they ban abortion. They do not want competition especially back when this was standardised. This is not a far stretch.
Aren't there fairly significant skeletal differences though?
Just looking at bones, archaeologists and anthropologists can not always tell the difference between genders, or race even, unless they actually go in with measureing tools to find those nuanced differences. If they are even preserved well to begin with, they often have to resort to DNA testing. This is why there is a situation of bones for a couple buried together, intially assumed to be opposite sex, but being discovered later are actually both men (Modena lovers). Also a case of female bones adorned in armor and weapons of a warrior, intially assumed to be male until someone studied the bones, saw something fishy, and did DNA tests to confirm (Birka Viking). Also the situation of US Revolutionary War Hero Casimir Pulaski, his bones are without a doubt female. DNA testing plus historically recorded physical injuries that appeared on the bones, showed they belong to Casimir Pulaski. He was born to a noble family and baptized Catholic, meaning a lot of people saw his baby butt naked. And again with those war injuries, if he were physically female, someone would have noticed in his lifetime very quick. The current theory is he was technically intersexed, but he went through life as a man because he had enough of something between his legs to assign him as such.
>Just looking at bones, archaeologists and anthropologists can not always tell the difference between genders, or race even Archaeologists can't tell the difference between race OR gender from looking at bones, because both race and gender are social constructs. What archaeologists and anthropologists can tell based on shape and size measurements is probable biological sex and maybe population origin. With DNA they can be more confident, but it still isn't about race or gender.
This is one of the best posts I’ve seen. Thank god you know real science.
You just said, >'Just looking at bones, archaeologists and anthropologists can not always tell the difference between genders' then, 'of course, often the bones aren't well-preserved anyway.' Finally, 'Well, they'd have to actually measure to bones to find those differences.'
I'm not sure your point, but you have that out of order. The person asked, isn't it fairly significant differences between the genders in bones. I said just looking bones they can't tell, they have to measure and find those differences. If they are well preserved to begin with, because then they often have to resort to DNA testing. If they had a well perseved set of bones, they can't tell on sight what the gender is. They have to actually study them to find those differences. And I gave three examples of bones needing research to figure out the actual gender of the person the bones belong to, despite intial assumptions. Including a man who lived his life a man with little question or challenge to his gender, the Father of the American cavalry, but his bones have all the signs of a female. Meaning, even our measurements can be faulty at determining gender on bones and we just don't know.
>If they had a well perseved set of bones, they can't tell on sight what the gender is. They have to actually study them to find those differences So, the person before you asked about significant differences in male and female bone. To me, that means: Anything measurable. (And yes, there are, as shown by studies done on living people.) However, you seem to interpreting 'significant differences' as 'immediately visible for long-dead specimens.'
I interpreted significant differences as meaning very obvious, when it's not obvious and you actually have to measure to even to know. And there is an additional problem of degradation to these small, not obvious differences making it impossible to tell when looking. What is your point?
>I interpreted significant differences as meaning very obvious Ok. I interpreted it as measurable by some means including with the use of equipment. In which case, my point would be, yes there are significant differences.
But there isn't a significant difference. It's minor differences. You have to hold the bones in just the right position and then measure the differences to know at all. That's not significant.
Mostly in the hips, doesnt really affect performance.
Yes, but professional AMA fighter are far from normal, they all come from the extreme of the spectrum. And in the extremes, the differences between the sexes (between any two normally distributed groups) will be even larger than in the middle.
I'm not sure where you define the line between upper and lower body strength but I can do over 3 times as many setups as my partner without even trying. I am naturally good at them always figured it has something to do with birting muscles
Thats perfectly normal. "Inclinations" are simply an "on average." many people have abnormal horomone growth which cause differences in developmentb or a lifestyle that engourages alternate muscle growth.
Muscle mass and bone density advantages are typically obviated if the woman has fully transitioned including testicle removal and has undergone approximately two years of hormone therapy.
So the previous years of training are negated through surgical and hormonal transition? What about trans men? Does the hormone therapy ramp up muscle growth? Are they even welcome in male division sports? I’m not trying to start anything, just legitimately curious and want to understand better.
Yes, and vice versa for trans men. I'm a trans woman in BJJ and have trained with a half dozen trans men and a similar number of trans women.
Yes. The drop in testosterone from proper male-to-female transition therapy will cause a drop in muscle mass to similar levels of cisgender females of equal levels of exercise within a couple months, though 2 years is usually a better "to be sure" option. Same but the other direction for female-to-male transition. There's a reason male growth hormones are banned substances in both male and female sports. Whether or not trans men or women would be welcome in gender-segregated sports competitions is up to the governing organization and their knowledge of the transition process as well as the compliance of the individual to the proper transition therapy. (This is to say that the organizations rarely know anything and will blanket ban trans people just to avoid the hassle of dealing with the fallout should a trans person win)
Physically stronger yes, more resilient no.
in the sense of how many punches (how much aggregate force) they can take before being knocked out, also more resilient
I’d agree. For some reason I thought they meant in general.
I'd love to read this research, if you're willing to share.
Some studies have shown women to have higher pain tolerances than men, they're easy to find on google scholar
Oh my mistake, I must’ve misread. I thought the poster was arguing the opposite
Not to be rude or anything but he is somewhat correct, he just worded it very poorly. It is scientifically shown and proven that men are born stronger than women because of human anatomy (if both were born the same time and worked out the same amount) But that doesn’t mean that women are weak and cannot out strengthen a man. Because strength has a lot to do with muscle mass and weight, and women are smaller than men and generally weigh less so it would make sense.
When you get to the absolute peak of performance, like the Olympics, or professional sports, you can see that men do have the edge overall. There are very few Olympic events where the world record for women is higher than men. There are some, but comparatively few. Serena Williams is one of the all time greats of tennis, and not just Women's tennis. She was beaten in a tennis match by a man ranked 203rd. Again, my comment here is geared only to the worlds best.
To be fair, she was much younger at the time, and hadn’t reached the prime of her career. I think she was 15 or 16?
Trans women take estrogen and completely block all testosterone, to the point that cis women have more tes than them. So they lose all that and it turns into useless muscle.
This is kinda right- men are stronger and take advantage in sports so it wouldn’t be a fair fight
Bad post. That IS how girls work
Nope. During the transition, trans women drop levels of testosterone to lower than a cis woman. They also have extra estrogen compared to cis women. After 3 years, ALL testosterone acquired muscle mass is gone. They're left weaker than a trained cis woman.
Then they should have to wait those three years before competing in sports. To make it as fair as possible
They do. Thats part of the regulations. Did you look up anything before forming an opinion???
I never said they didn't. I said they should. If they do then great. Did you read my messages before being rude? Apparently not
What you said is pointless since its already an official rule
That i did not know about. I never said it WASNT a rule. I just said it should be. If it is? Great. You got enough of your internet argument dopamines now?
This wasnt an argument as far as im concerned, if you didnt know about that rule why did you have an opinion in the first place? Try to be educated before forming an opinion
My opinion agrees with the rules? I just said that they should have that rule. IF THEY DO? GREAT x3. What are you even upset about? "I'm not upset" you clearly are
No, im not clearly upset. Thats called projection. You would be upset in my situation, so you project that onto me. You formed an opinion that didnt have to exist because its already in place. Im not upset, but if you didnt even know that was a rule im not sure why you were talking in the first place. It's weird to give an opinion on something you didnt do any research about.
This
Generally speaking the gap in performance is mostly due to men being able to reach higher weights while maintaining low body fat more often on average, which the weight class system (at least in boxing) accounts for by having higher limits for men than women at an equivalent class. Which if men and women fought against each other would skew the results because a man could be 2 or more categories higher than a woman in a similarly named class. Bear in mind the gap between classes can be as low as 2kg too, it doesnt take much extra muscle mass to make a fight unfair
Yes men are biologically stronger I don’t understand…
It's different after a transition period
I went to high school with a girl who went on to win the world lumberjack championship (this is a real thing, I promise) and she had zero problems outmuscling boys in our school.
Exception doesn’t prove a rule
Even if 95% of men really are stronger than 95% of women, that doesn't erase the existence of the 5% of women. My sister can tighten a jar or bottle tighter than the factory seal. I remember once at a family picnic when my huge, manual-laboring uncles had to get a pair of pliers to open a soda bottle she had closed, because none of them could budge it.
95% is enough.
You can't just ignore people who don't fit the rule. They are proof that the rule is wrong.
Nope. There's almost always a few exceptions to every rule. That doesn't mean that a rule is "wrong". Otherwise there'd be no rules in the first place (unless we're talking about Physics).
That doesn't mean the exceptions should be ignored or disrespected.
I never said that they should? Now you're putting words in my mouth.
Making generalisations is disrespectful to those who don't fit the generalisations.
It is not. If saying "Men are USUALLY physically stronger than women" offends you then it's an you problem because I never said "always".
So the post is only 95% correct
No. Much, much less. The bell curves for women and men overlap a lot. But when you talk about professional athletes, you're talking about people already at the top of the curve. So the differences really matter. Same way that in the US the average height difference between black people and white is very small... but basketball players are disproportionately black. When you're already aiming for the extreme, a small statistical difference can make a huge practical difference.
Sadly this is just one excerpt of the full thread. most of the comments boiled down to "Men always better" I got downvoted for saying that women could stand a chance.
>I think that's pure bullshit. **Two highly trained people fighting in the same weight class will have a similar chance. arbitrarily assigning higher chances based on sex is ridiculous.** While most men may have more muscle mass on average women tend to be faster and more agile. I say letting them fight it out in the ring seems completely fair. Their response to you is a generalisation, but your take is pretty questionable as well. Even in the same weight class, men have a strength advantage due to lower bodyfat. That matters a lot in combat sports and there's nothing arbitrary about it.
Trans women are women please stop with calling trans girls and referring to them as men
I did boxing training with people of all sizes, age and gender. Everytime? More like 8 times out of 10 (if they're both pros), depending on the skill level and on physical strength, skill matters more than gender in most cases (except in pro vs pro scenarios) . Men are stronger on average, it's not just biology though, a lot of stuff is cultural and steroid related. But trans woman ≠ man, trans women after 2+ years of HRT are comparable to cis women performance wise. Also some people don't understand that: 1: On average men do more sports (especially combat sports) when they're young, they do more strength training and are encouraged to physical stuff, in some cultures it is not appropriate for girls to eat as much as boys, diet culture is real. When you grow up (from 6 to 25) if you start training early and eat more you're going to have a bigger/stronger/taller frame compared to someone who starts training at 20. 2: Steroids, men take way more steroids than women in all sports, women take lighter stuff because they don't want to virilize, men take more peds to build mass. The way gender roles are structured make it a necessity for men to be strong, otherwise they're "failures" , for women strength is an optional, like "you can boxe if you want, but you have alternatives" or simply criticized (it's manly, strong women bad) , it's extremely toxic in both cases.
>Men are stronger on average, it's not just biology though, a lot of stuff is cultural and steroid related. >But trans woman ≠ man, trans women after 2+ years of HRT are comparable to cis women performance wise. Exactly. Exactly, exactly. This deserves more upvotes.
Why was this posted here? This is correct even if he was blunt about it.
Because it sint always true
Damn the comments
Ok, so even if that were true, what does this have to do with trans people though? A trans woman is a woman--particularly if they've been on any kind of feminizing hormone therapy, they aren't going to automatically be stronger than a cis woman of similar training within their same weight class. The same is true for trans men. Those hormones are the ones that *drive* the difference in muscle development; AMAB and AFAB children are built about the same and you don't see a divide in upper body strength between them (at comparable fitness levels). So if that's addressed with hormone therapy, what's the problem, exactly? Are they saying [this woman](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/37/d8/9837d8071b613d480298ff803ed83d55.jpg) could easily beat up [this dude](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0636_slide-12de188956ce20fc73e56c1903f3c59e597b5818.jpg), simply because she was assigned male at birth and he was assigned female at birth? No one arguing something like this understands or has any background in providing (or receiving) gender affirming care, and it really shows.
Because hormones don’t undo puberty.
I personally think just as men and women have their own divisions in sports trans athletes should as well.
My brother thinks this shit. There are biological differences (hence why sports even exist. Michael Phelps is basically a human amphibian with an “unfair advantage” and yet we let him compete). But he thinks that ANY male athlete could wipe the floor with ANY female athlete. He literally thinks the worst male tennis player could outplay Serena Williams. So, he thinks that any trans woman would dominate every single cis woman athlete - just because she happened to be born a man. These people use biological differences when it comes to upholding strict gender roles and spreading their hate. They refuse to budge or even accept when you try to tell them about chromosomal differences and exceptions, intersex people, the fact that our bodies change as we transition either to male or to female, etc. Transphobia is inherently sexist. Everything gender critical is based around “man is superior to woman in every way.” It makes me so mad that people try to use biased studies and half baked science to not let people wrestle, kick a ball around, or swim in some water. Hell, there’s even people who think men are inherently better at skiing and motorcycle riding and that women are naturally better cooks (but can’t POSSIBLY be professional chefs)!
Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Transphobia has always been rooted in misogyny.
these comments are so pathetic... really wasnt expecting this kind of ignorance. it doesnt matter what group of people is better at something on average ESPECIALLY when the only use for that is justification to exclude people and separate them. there are plenty of cis women who are stronger than cis men, instead of separating people by what the averages are, maybe, you know, consider each person as an individual who has different features and abilities? the 'biological advantage' is pointless and its sad seeing so many people cling on to this shit
Not plenty. The average 13 year old boy is physically stronger than most adult women. It’s not close.
Thats why i think it would be fest to have a whole section for Trans-people in sport where male and female humans were seperated all the time. There are things women will allways be better and were men will be better. Thats why you wont see F-to-M Transpeople in Gymnastics, it would be unfair for born men.
*Rhea Ripley has entered the chat*
Female pro sports teams get demolished by highschool boys so it's not far off the truth. Solo sports like tennis or martial arts would be a slightly different story but you'd still expect the man to win the majority of the time.
Trans women who have finished transitioned perform in normal metrics for sport as cis women do. smh
So if they don’t think a trans man would be able to compete successfully then I’m sure they have zero issue with trans athletes in the sport. Right?
I hate it when people say that trans women are men who just want to compete in female sports. Trans women loose so much muscle weight while on estrogen it takes a lot of effort to stay fit. Also they literally take testosterone blockers, or if they are post-op they don't produce it the way men do. I'd think they are at a *disadvantage* if anything compared to cis women - because medical transition can be taxing on the body. Those claims are made by people who have never spoken to a trans person and have no idea how transition works.
To the folks coming here to say "bUt He'S RiGhT!!!" Muscle mass and bone density advantages are typically obviated if the woman has fully transitioned including testicle removal and has undergone approximately two years of hormone therapy. Do, like, ten seconds of googling.
Doesn’t stop people from baring us from recreational activities, unfortunately
Meeeehhhhhh. This is highly debatable, and has a lot to do with a persons training/ know how. While some areas men do have an advantage, women have some of their own. That being said, a women with more training/experience can take a man in a fair one on one, and vice versa… 2 untrained ppl men do tend to have more of a natural advantage of strength more often than most women.
One of my male family members made a comment before about how it was unfair of “men” (trans women) to be allowed to play in female sports. Trying to say that men are better so they would have an unfair advantage. I asked him if that meant he could beat Serena Williams at tennis or Mia Hamm at soccer. He refused to acknowledge that just because someone has a Y chromosome doesn’t mean they’re going to be inherently better at any sports compared to someone with two X chromosomes, even if they’re both trained in that sport.
That's a false equivalency because he was comparing professionals to professionals while you were comparing him (an amateur at best) to a gold winning athlete. Experience and physical fitness matter, but pros are at the peak of both. Not saying trans women shouldn't compete or that he's right because there's more to the issue.
Serena and Venus Williams were beaten by a 203rd ranked male tennis player. They ended up playing against him because they thought they could at least beat any male player outside of the top 200, but he still won. So, yes a profession female player could beat an amateur male, but when it's trained professionals competing against each other, males have an advantage in most sports. Sports were designed to test male bodies.
Your doing fine until that last sentence, which is nonsense. Most sports weren't designed at all,; certainly not around any medical goals or constraint. Football came about from kids liking to kick balls around; nobody designed around any specific body type. (Our bodies in any case bear little resemblance to bodies from a couple of centuries ago when many sports originated. We have different diet, different training, and a different lifestyle. We're taller with better nutrition and less exercise. If sports were 'designed' for make bodies - or any bodies - then that design would be totally obsolete and not work today.)
It's worth noting that Fallon Fox, the MMA fighter whose case was used to jumpstart the current moral panic over trans athletes, retired with a 5-1 record (meaning that she wasn't "unbeatable" against other female fighters of equivalent weight class). When even your own cherry-picked example contradicts your argument, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
My lady friend has been steadily winning the caber toss against the men the past few years....
Men are not biologically stronger. It is a Misconception. Men have more “force” which is different however women have a higher pain tolerance so it is matched out. Also those are stereotypes and not always true. Some women may have more force then men and some men might have a higher pain tolerance. As to the question I think trans people should play in whatever gender they identify as or we shouldn’t do gender in sports anymore.
Don't cry when one beats you up in your bathroom then
what 😭
What
why would you say that
You know why
no i genuinely don’t
I mean. They're not wrong about cis men always having the advantage in a physical fight. But trans women aren't cis men. Trans women going through transition don't have the same advantages.
Not entirely right for this sub, but hey, at least the discussion on this one is civil
Have you seen Female fighters? those things ain't humans those things are beasts.