Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

It means according to that source, and they provided the source, the sex gap in sports is primarily rooted in biological differences between the sexes, namely in relation to males superior skeletal muscle mass, oxidative capacities and lower fat mass. It means exactly what it says.

What of it? I wouldn’t read as much as you’ve done into a single sentence in the whole article and taken it out of context as though it meant I could now ignore the rest of the article because I’ve got what I came for. Even in the study which the article refers to, the author makes more or less the same point as I’m making, and the same point as the article in question sought to make -

On a personal note, starting in the late 1970s and into the 1980s I was lucky enough to participate in distance running as a college undergraduate and into medical school and beyond. During this time, distance running became widely open to women and I participated on successful co-ed teams. In this context, it was an incredible privilege to have a ‘front row seat’ as my female teammates made what was once thought to be dangerous and impossible, routine. The larger lesson is that it is a grave mistake to underestimate or limit any individual or group of people on the basis of superficial preconceived notions and biases. I am forever grateful to these women for teaching me this lesson.

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/JP272268

Initially I thought you were interpreting the whole article as suggesting that it accepts the primary differences are fixed and unchangeable, which is why I said that it doesn’t, and went on to explain the broader point of the article - it was making the point that the assumptions mentioned above were what informed conventional wisdom, but there were other factors which could be influencing the sex gap in sports which ought to be explored and would require further research, particularly among women, if a reduction in the sex gap was to be achieved -

Their aim wasn’t simply “men are better than women, woohoo, lock her up boys, we’re done here!”, They first established that there is a sex gap, and used the running as their example, then they examined the possible reasons which might explain the sex gap, then they proposed that it was possible to reduce the sex gap by focusing on, and conducting more research in women’s sports in order to reduce the sex gap in performance between women’s and men’s sports.

Their argument is the opposite of suggesting that current research is conclusive. They’re arguing that current research is limited in it’s simplistic explanation of the phenomenon which has been observed, and that more research is needed into women’s sports in order to better understand the causes, and propose better solutions to achieve the results which they are arguing is possible, namely - a reduction in the sex gap in performance between women’s and men’s sports.

They’re not suggesting women just need to try harder, before anyone ties to suggest that less than helpful interpretation based upon essentialism. The authors are arguing the opposite of essentialism. They would, because they’re aware of how essentialism is used in the sciences to rationalise and justify all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsense -

Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. Plato, in the Parmenides dialogue, depicts Socrates questioning the notion, suggesting that if we accept the idea that every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence to be beautiful or just, we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt". In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin; the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.

Historically, beliefs which posit that social identities such as ethnicity, nationality or gender are essential characteristics have in many cases been shown to have destructive or harmful results. It has been argued by some that Essentialist thinking lies at the core of many reductive, discriminatory or extremist ideologies. Psychological essentialism is also correlated with racial prejudice. In medical sciences, essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities—for example assuming that differences in hypertension in Afro-American populations are due to racial differences rather than social causes—leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment. Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Use the ignore function then, that’s what it’s there for 👍

We would be, if I ever took a notion to entertain your silliness. You’ve admitted that you know, and according to you, I know too, so you don’t actually need me to answer a question which you already know the answer to, which makes your question pointless. You do that a lot, but I don’t think it’s sufficient reason to ignore you. It’s sufficient reason however to justify refusing to entertain you.

We’re agreed.

Happy now?

Not true Frank, I have no problem stating as a fact that depending upon the context, men have physiological advantages over women. I do have a problem with the ‘males’ and ‘females’ nonsense, because it’s reductive language, so I just don’t use it. Bit like classifying and referring to women and men, girls and boys as vulva and penis owners… you wouldn’t really, would you? I wouldn’t either. Some people would, and those people in my experience, are best avoided, for your own sanity. That’s just my experience though, you can judge for yourself.

Do they? I wouldn’t know. You do though, and you already know I know. At least, that’s the way this works based upon every previous interaction I’ve had with you up to this point. Is that going to change to you deciding you’re prepared to engage in good faith in the discussion?

When it’s used reductively. That’s why I gave you the example of using vulva and penis owners. From the perspective of taxonomy in biology, they are inarguably accurate terms. However, they are also indicative of the fact that anyone using them is probably a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and should be best avoided for your own sanity.

I’d suggest the same of anyone using the terms ‘males’ and ‘females’ when they’re suggesting that females are inferior to males in some way as a consequence of the physiological differences between the sexes in support of their argument that prejudice and discrimination against either women or men is justified on that basis.

Of course women are at a significant disadvantage in terms of competing against men in activities in which women were never even considered in the first place as the idea was always to demonstrate the virility of men. Women were thought to be inferior as a consequence of their fertility. That’s another one btw that’d make me instantly wary of anyone using the term ‘male fertility’.

In terms of men, they would be referring to virility, as that is the antonym of fertility as it applies to women in the context of human reproduction. I’d be a bit more patient with anyone making that mistake though as it’s not so commonly used in modern English -

Virility (from the Latin virilitas, manhood or virility, derived from Latin vir, man) refers to any of a wide range of masculinecharacteristics viewed positively. Virile means "marked by strength or force". Virility is commonly associated with vigour, health, sturdiness, and constitution, especially in the fathering of children. In this last sense, virility is to men as fertility is to women. Virile has become obsolete in referring to a "nubile" young woman, or "a maid that is Marriageable or ripe for a Husband, or Virill".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virility

I’d be much less forgiving if I got the smell of incel off them, though generally if I don’t pick up on the scent, when they start quoting the barstool philosophy of Canada Dryballs and his 12 rules for life, it’s a good indication that you should probably run, and don’t stop until you’ve put considerable distance between them and yourself. I don’t imagine most Canadians are anything like that though solely on the basis of them having characteristics in common with Peterson; it’s a big country, so I don’t really fear for your safety.

What they’re doing, is they’re pointing out that the explanations for the sex gap are primarily based on the biological differences between the sexes, entirely absent of any other explanations, which is true. That’s what they refer to as conventional wisdom, and they give an example which defies the logic of conventional wisdom, ie - an outcome which, if conventional wisdom holds true, should not be possible.

Neither they, nor I, have ever suggested that the gap could be reduced to zero. What I’m suggesting there, and what they’re suggesting, is that a couple of things need to happen in women’s sports if the gap is to be reduced, and they mention more research and more resources and so on, which I think is a fair point.

Do I think it’s going to happen? Not really, not on the scale necessary to make any significant inroad into the sex gap. Do I care? Not all that much if I’m being honest, because I don’t care for much for the idea of comparing women’s sports to men’s sports in the first place. I think greater investment in women’s sports is arguable on its own merits without ever referring to men’s sports. Then again I’m not interested in notions of gender equality which I gather are kinda a big deal for some people, even scientists.

It’s like you completely ignored the point I was making is the importance of context, y’know, that concept where it helps an understanding, as opposed to going off half-cocked in frustration at the fact that I don’t share your opinions.

I only mention JP in passing, not entirely unrelated as his whole shtick is the promotion of male virility and the fact that he has made a career for himself out of playing the victim when Bill C-16 was passed -

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

A blood test might be required if someone were interested in finding out their sex, but for the purposes of being protected from unlawful discrimination on the basis of their gender identity, no such tests are required. I don’t have any issue with exemptions for the purposes of blood donation. See? Context, it’s important -

On August 15, 2016, Canadian Blood Services' new eligibility criteria for transgender people came into effect. This criteria states that transgender donors who have not had lower gender affirming surgery will be asked questions based on their sex assigned at birth. They will be eligible to donate or be deferred based on these criteria. For example, trans women will be asked if they have had sex with a man in the last 12 months. If the response is yes, they will be deferred for one year after their last sexual contact with a man. Donors who have had lower gender affirming surgery will be deferred from donating blood for one year after their surgery. After that year, these donors will be screened in their affirmed gender. This means that trans women who have not had gender affirming surgery and have sex with men will be deferred for three months following last sexual contact before being eligible, similarly to men who have sex with men.

This distinction between operative and non-operative trans women has been deemed as transphobic by some trans rights activists in different provinces.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Canada

It wasn’t in any sort of an attempt to appear clever (again you give me far too much credit), it was only because it popped into my head, entirely related to what we were talking about, and the only reason it occurred to me was because you had mentioned you reside in Canada, so you’d be far more likely to bump into his disciplines than I would, but at the same time I’m not really concerned for your safety because like I said - big country, be grand.

This is exactly what I said:

Of course women are at a significant disadvantage in terms of competing against men in activities in which women were never even considered in the first place as the idea was always to demonstrate the virility of men. Women were thought to be inferior as a consequence of their fertility.

Since their inception, sports were developed as a way of demonstrating virility among men. There were no equivalent competitions among women because, well, they weren’t men.

Even when Pierre de Coubertin founded the modern Olympic Games, it was basically a means of again, demonstrating virility, and a few of his other… fancier notions. On the idea of women competing in sports for example, he had this to say -

Coubertin also spoke against women's sports and the Women's World Games: "Impractical, uninteresting, unaesthetic, and we are not afraid to add: incorrect, such would be in our opinion this female half-Olympiad".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Coubertin

Basically, the idea of women in sports just weren’t given any consideration in society, and that’s as true today as it was then. It’s why women’s sports are as underfunded and unsupported as they are - not because women can’t compete in sports, but because of the perception that they shouldn’t, because sports are what sorts the men from the boys. Girls and women just aren’t relevant in that paradigm.

Right, so if you go back far enough to make your point, your kind of skipping over the main question which was do you think that games, sports and competitions, which males and females can compete in, are geared more towards men. Like football, boxing, gymnastics etc, your stance is that these were created for males and thus that is where their advantage is, not their physical attributes? Is that what you’re saying?

I have the full Sky Sports package, your claim of “can’t move for womens sport on the tv” isn’t even worth entertaining.

But I wouldn’t expect you to take my word for it -

https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/do-you-know-the-factors-influencing-girls-participation-in-sports/

Must have been truly awful for you to be hemmed in by the other 96% of sports on tv dedicated to coverage and promotion of men’s sports, if you couldn’t move for the 4% of sports on tv dedicated to coverage and promotion of women’s sports 😒

I'm really lost as to what the point of this thread is at this stage, or what the discussion is about anymore it's grown legs and tangents. I'm beyond lost.

So you’ll say that my claim that women’s sports are underfunded and under supported is tripe, based on the fact that you don’t even watch sport, but you can’t move for women’s sport on the tv…

It’s no secret that women’s sports are not watched or supported as much as men’s sports. 

According to livestrong.com, In a study that was done on four major newspapers– USA Today, the Boston Globe, the Orange County Registrar and the Dallas Morning News– women-only sports stories totaled just 3.5 percent of all sports stories. 

It’s not just the papers who aren’t showcasing women’s sports either, it’s all media outlets in general.

Approximately 40 percent of sport and physical activity participants are women, but only 6 to 8 percent of total media sports coverage is devoted to their athletics, according to WomensSportsFoundation.com

https://knoxsports.com/dont-womens-sports-get-coverage-mens/

In an Irish context -

• Online coverage of women’s sport has grown by 50% but is still only six per cent.
• Coverage of women’s sport in print increased in 2019 by 53% but is still only five per cent nationally. 
• Irish audience figures for women’s sport on TV almost trebled in 2019, from seven per cent in 2018 to 18 % in 2019.
• But overall television coverage of women’s sport decreased by 40% in that period. RTE and TG4 actually increased their output but 11 TV channels were surveyed and the stark drop was down to the poor coverage of women on pay-per-view channels.
• 80 per cent of those surveyed said they are now more aware of women’s sport due to 20x20 and 61% said they are more likely to support women’s sport since its launch.
• 75% of men surveyed said 20x20 changed their mindset positively towards women’s sport.
• 42% of women said they are participating in more sport and physical activity due to 20x20

https://m.independent.ie/sport/womens-sport/independentie-the-top-site-for-coverage-of-womens-sport-39654864.html