Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Create Healthy Mice With Same-Sex Parents (bbc.com)
Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences were able to make baby mice with two moms and no dad. "The aim of the Chinese researchers was to work out which rules of reproduction they needed to break to make baby mice from same-sex parents," reports the BBC. "That in turn helps understand why the rules are so important." From the report: It was easier with double mums. The researchers took an egg from one mouse and a special type of cell -- a haploid embryonic stem cell -- from another. Both contained only half the required genetic instructions or DNA, but just bringing them together wasn't enough. The researchers had to use a technology called gene editing to delete three sets of genetic instructions to make them compatible (more on that later). The double-dad approach was slightly more complicated. It took a sperm, a male haploid embryonic stem cell, an egg that had all of its own genetic information removed and the deletion of seven genes to make it all work.
The reason we need to have sex is because our DNA -- our genetic code -- behaves differently depending on whether it comes from mum or dad, the study in Cell Stem Cell suggests. And without a female copy and a male copy our whole development gets thrown out of whack. It's called genomic imprinting with parts of the DNA in sperm and parts of the DNA in eggs getting different "stamps" that alter how they work. The bits of DNA carrying these stamps were the ones the researchers had to delete in order to make the baby mice viable.
The reason we need to have sex is because our DNA -- our genetic code -- behaves differently depending on whether it comes from mum or dad, the study in Cell Stem Cell suggests. And without a female copy and a male copy our whole development gets thrown out of whack. It's called genomic imprinting with parts of the DNA in sperm and parts of the DNA in eggs getting different "stamps" that alter how they work. The bits of DNA carrying these stamps were the ones the researchers had to delete in order to make the baby mice viable.
Wait a second while I grab my popcorn.
#DeleteChrome
Can you talk a little louder? I can't hear you over the noise from the pumps here at the sewage treatment plant...
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Swear I read about something like this on Slashdot a year or two ago. Although I don't recall gene editing being involved.
TFA says the mice created from the DNA of two females lived long enough to reproduce, but the ones created from two males died shortly after birth (presumably due to genomic imprinting errors). It's in doubt that even the ones with two mothers were fully healthy/normal.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Don't men have an X and a Y ?
Nullius in verba
I have no fear. My wife still needs me, if only to catch spiders and to splatter her back with sunscreen.
Who needs a Y chromosome? It's dying anyway, on its own.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-19/y-chromosome-disappearing-what-will-happen-to-men/9342994
You want to promote same sex marriages.
You are free as in freedom.
You want to prove that having same sex parents isn't any worse than having parents with different sex.
You are free as in beer.
The problem lies withing the concept of "good" and "bad".
Did you check the psychology status of those mice against the reference samples?
For how long?
What are you reference samples?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Well, if that's YOUR only use, then I doubt we'd miss your kind.
Most of the rest of us have a tad more varied value we can bring to the table...
Can you talk a little louder? I can't hear you over the noise from the pumps here at the sewage treatment plant...
Why do you continue to wear those pumps if they make so much noise? And at a sewage treatment plant? Take off those pumps and wear something more practical, like some steel toe boots.
I have never come across anyone claiming the strength distribution curves don't have significant overlap. When people claim men are stronger than women, aren't they just referring to stats like mean, median, maximum, etc.?
Yup, can't have any scientific work being done to determine how and why sexual reproduction works at a genetic level. Burn all the books, kill all the intellectuals says that fascist.
It is a complete myth that women are weaker than men. Some women are weaker than some men just as there are men who are weaker than all but the strongest one. But, the two strength distribution curves have much more overlap than not.
It took me only a couple minutes to find this:
https://www.livescience.com/52998-women-combat-gender-differences.html
And a 2006 study in the same journal revealed that men had much stronger grips than women — the difference was so big that 90 percent of the women scored lower than 95 percent of the men
The overlap is actually quite small.
First, I'm not sure how you concluded that two males would only produce boys when the reason you gave for women producing only girls doesn't apply to boys...
Second, the X Y model is for humans. Other animals have differnet models, and some have multiple models, even mammals, especially rodents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't worry. Asexual reproduction may be *possible*, that doesn't mean it will be used much. Most men AND women prefer sex. It is fun! Most of us want to have a loved one around. Also, the natural way requires no expensive equipment!
I don't think men have anything to worry about. Women won't be taking test tubes home to see Mom for approval and x-raying their bank accounts anytime soon.
My guess is that they are more detail oriented and less likely to turn their hands into sheets of paper.
It is a complete myth that women are weaker than men.
The two are not the same. Being detailed oriented isn't the same as possessing and manipulating physical strength to a degree of accuracy that only men can achieve en masse.
Some work requires an eye for detail that women do possess and no bigger example of this can be found in Rolls Royce where women were the ones who would construct the wax molds for the titanium turbine fan blades for their jet engines. Let's not forget that men and women have their roles in society and that maintaining that balance is always going to be an ongoing challenge for the Human race.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So they needed two moms
Yes, it's brilliant when China in particular is short of women thanks to baby girls being aborted or murdered, at least in the rural areas.
Let's not forget that men and women have their roles in society
So barefoot, pregnant, and making wax molds for Rolls Royce? That's actually 33% more progressive than I would have expected.
When she suggested reducing population of men to 10%, she meant non-brutal methods.
In her early career, Gearhart took part in a series of seminars at San Francisco State University, where feminist scholars were critically discussed issues of rape, slavery, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Gearhart outlines and justifies a three-step proposal for female-led social change:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.
Gearhart does not base this radical proposal on the idea that men are innately violent or oppressive, but rather on the "real danger is in the phenomenon of male-bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport." Gearhart identifies the self-perpetuating, male-exclusive reinforcement of power within these groups as corrosive to female-led social change. Thus, if "men were reduced in number, the threat would not be so great and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured." Gearhart, a dedicated pacifist, recognized that this kind of change could not be achieved through mass violence. On the critical question of how women could achieve this, Gearhart argues that it is by women's own capacity for reproduction that the ratio of men to women can be changed though the technologies of cloning or ovular merging, both of which would only produce female births. She argues that as women take advantage of these reproductive technologies, the sex ratio would change over generations.[13]
Sally Miller Gearhart, one of the founders of gender studies`
I have never come across anyone claiming the strength distribution curves don't have significant overlap. When people claim men are stronger than women, aren't they just referring to stats like mean, median, maximum, etc.?
What do you call significant overlap?
I'd be very surprised if you took a group of same-age individuals- say one hundred 25yo men and 100 25yo women- if more than 10 women were stronger than the weakest 10 men- if we're looking at pure strength. If we're looking at stamina based "strength" challenges that number would probably be higher. There are some things, like ultra-long distance running, where women would actually do better than men... ... but if we're looking at who can lift the most, or who can push harder with their legs... the overlap is surely lower than 10%. I'd be open minded to be convinced otherwise if anyone has any knowledge of studies saying to the contrary.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Let's not forget that men and women have their roles in society
So barefoot, pregnant, and making wax molds for Rolls Royce? That's actually 33% more progressive than I would have expected.
Is the kitchen really the right place to be making wax moulds for Rolls Royce?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Most of them can't read a tape measure or put a donut on a car.
I did that once... I was mad as hell when I drove off and forgot the doughnut and the coffee on the roof of my car.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They can only create female offspring in this manner as women do not have a Y chromosome. I would assume the converse (boys only) would hold true for children of two males.
As long as we don't go into a technological darkage and forget how to make test tube babies- are men even needed? I say this, as a man, if we can reproduce without men- is that really a problem? Yeah, men have more physical strength, but is that necessary in the future going forwards with everything automated.
If you're setting up a colony on Mars or a moon, or something else... maybe that would be a place to just leave out men entirely if you can have two female parents. Men are much more likely to be on extreme ends of any social spectrum. Men are more likely to express genetic diseases and defects (mostly because we're missing half a chromosome).
On the other hand- the fact that men have only one copy of a number of genes means men are more likely to be geniuses (or retarded) than women too. So it's probably best not to eliminate men altogether. Maybe keep males at 10% of the population- a safety net for humanity if we ever lose the ability to reproduce in the lab- and because sometimes extreme expression of genes is beneficial. Plus- one man for 10 women sounds perfect numbers for humanity to be equally sexually satiated.
If we were starting a new colony on Mars, or an asteroid, or... wherever though- a population of all females for the first few generations might actually be a good idea though.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I can finally go back to playing videogames without fearing the onslaught of women trying to use me as a piece of man-meat, day in and day out.
Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago. Reading her later writing and how she describes her early ideas, I have a feeling she probably wouldn't be all that pleased.
It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it. So I'm wondering what the purpose of presenting this information in such a misleading way is.
It's been modded as "informative" which suggests that at least some people accepted it without checking. That's a great demonstration of how links are used to add credibility to a post, even though the link largely contradicts it. The existence of the link makes people think that the claim is properly sourced, so they don't bother to check.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm referring to the parent post which appears to be taking all men and women regardless of age group. This means at the extremes we can take the very strongest women, be they athletes or female body builders or whatever and compare them to bedridden nonagenarian men.
When the Democrats keep inventing new genders, it will now be possible to test them on mice first.
I'm referring to the parent post which appears to be taking all men and women regardless of age group. This means at the extremes we can take the very strongest women, be they athletes or female body builders or whatever and compare them to bedridden nonagenarian men.
If we're comparing all of humanity including women in their prime and men post decline... sure there would be significant overlap healthy young women will be stronger than a lot of older men.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That changes quickly when people actually do hard work or exercise.
Bottom line the strength difference with males and females of same weight is pretty low. Females have it harder to gain muscles. Absolute strength is often lower, so is speed. But the differences are not that big. E.g. as soon as skills come into account, e.g. in martial arts, underestimating a woman is a big mistake. Same in archery or horsemanship. Sure, if I was sailing on a an cup america race, I would prefer heavy muscled men.
BTW: the mounted archers and mounted spear riders of Rohan in the "Lord of the Rings" movie, that are mostly women.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm a bit over 50 now.
More than lets say 3 times a day, and 2 times in a row, I really don't want.
I mean, don't want to make love ... so being responsible for 10 "girl friends" would mean half of them only have sex every second day, and I would "work" at my full capacity.
Not sure if that is fun for any of us ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You mean data like this?
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm a bit over 50 now.
More than lets say 3 times a day, and 2 times in a row, I really don't want.
I mean, don't want to make love ... so being responsible for 10 "girl friends" would mean half of them only have sex every second day, and I would "work" at my full capacity.
Not sure if that is fun for any of us ...
You could always double up on them from time to time. All it takes is a velvet robe and a thick moustache and you will have all the correct attire for hosting threesomes.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You mean data like this?
It's hard to pull % of from that... but that actually looks like less than 10% overlap there. Besides a few outliers there are two separate bands of strength there. (for that one particular test there).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Obviously you don't know much about women.
Obviously you don't know much about women.
Any man who claims he does is mistaken.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I have never come across anyone claiming the strength distribution curves don't have significant overlap. When people claim men are stronger than women, aren't they just referring to stats like mean, median, maximum, etc.?
Yes, there is overlap. Which is why some women are physically capable of doing heavier work than most. And why some men are not. But those edge cases of strength are almost entirely male, and they are needed.
But let us say that this is a feminist's dream come true. That the male of the species can be bred out of the species. So we end up with a female only population.
There would probably be a need for further genetic intervention to produce females that would be employed at the edge careers, the work that requires extreme strength. So the great irony is that this would entail raising the testosterone level of many females, so that they could gain the muscle mass and strength to do certain tasks such as oil rigging work.
The question of course, would this be performed in the womb, or using a sort of female bodybuilder steroid/testosterone injection model. This is not unprecedented, as one feminist/trans model involves convincing prepubescent males that they are really females, then dosing them with puberty inhibitors.
Of course, the great irony is that in producing females with the required muscle mass, they would then be producing individuals who were ersatz men. Just with very small penises as their clitorises grow in response to the chemical intervention. But all of the issues that men have that causes women to hate them would be expressed in these ersatz men.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I have never come across anyone claiming the strength distribution curves don't have significant overlap. When people claim men are stronger than women, aren't they just referring to stats like mean, median, maximum, etc.?
What do you call significant overlap?
Didn't you know that testosterone is a social construct? As much as some folks would like to believe otherwise, while there are women who are stronger than some men, they are relatively rare. And while steroids can be used to enhance their strength, at the higher strength levels, it is as they would say, a sausagefest.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What do you call significant overlap?
There is data and research on this but it's complicated and depends on the population you are talking about.
I'd be very surprised if you took a group of same-age individuals- say one hundred 25yo men and 100 25yo women- if more than 10 women were stronger than the weakest 10 men- if we're looking at pure strength.
You would be surprised then. It's more complicated than your intuition is telling you though I understand why you would think that. It depends on exactly what you are measuring and which population. There are important differences between realized population strength versus realized genetic potential strength. It also depends on whether the men and women have been physically training. Men are on average considerably stronger in the upper body but the difference are notably smaller in the lower body. There are some women that are stronger than most men at any given activity. There are no women that are stronger than all men obviously but the overlap is sometimes surprising. For example there are women who can squat over 200kg which I assure you is FAR more than most men of any size can do. The point is that women in general can reach peak strength that is closer to men than many realize.
I coach wrestling and have for over three decades and I coach both men and women. Wrestling obviously has a big strength component to it. Women definitely have a strength disadvantage but it's a smaller gap than most people imagine it to be for equivalent amounts of training. A typical untrained man will often have a bigger advantage over an untrained woman than a trained man will have over a trained woman. This of course varies by size and obviously men on average are larger. But women of similar size can often compete successfully. I've coached high school girls who were good enough to qualify for the state tournament competing against boys in wrestling which puts them in the top 10% and if they were really as weak as you imagine them to be they couldn't possible compete to that high a level. The best Olympic level women's wrestlers can't compete with the guys but they can beat a shocking percentage of the general population of equivalent age men - probably more than 50% in my direct experience. The gap between men's and women's world records in most sports has been shrinking steadily for decades. While nobody should expect women to overtake men, the peak performance potential seems to be not a vast chasm provided equivalent training. I think a lot of the perception of differences comes from the fact that women for a variety of reasons tend to participate less in sports and strength based activities so fewer of them realize their potential.
That changes quickly when people actually do hard work or exercise.
Bottom line the strength difference with males and females of same weight is pretty low. Females have it harder to gain muscles. Absolute strength is often lower, so is speed. But the differences are not that big. E.g. as soon as skills come into account, e.g. in martial arts, underestimating a woman is a big mistake. Same in archery or horsemanship. Sure, if I was sailing on a an cup america race, I would prefer heavy muscled men.
The differences? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sp...
In Soccer, the top women's teams regularly lose to barely post pubescent boys. I've coached Ice Hockey, and the girls are slower, and overall less aggressive. So it doesn't take much analysis to know that a Bantam Male Ice Hockey team would mop the ice with the women's Olympic team. We had a young woman on my son's Midget Hockey team (High school level) and we all loved her, and she had game and we respected her for that., but she was a couple steps slower. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when she decided to go to a girl team, where she excelled.
And it is terribly unfair that folks of your ilk seem to minimize the differences between males in females in sports. It's completely unfair to the women, as they deserve to enjoy competition too. NOw I suppose that in a wolrd where gender differences are merely a social construct, all would be equal. But trans girls now clean up in girls sports - https://www.louderwithcrowder.... https://nypost.com/2018/02/25/...
But since gender is a social construct, we have no choice but ti cherish our trans athletes. Side note: this inevitable strength difference is why feminist/trans supporters want to suppress puberty in the males they convince are females. https://www.transgendertrend.c... Once the genetic fact of puberty happens, males will become males. Kinda creepy though that you have to enforce ideology by altering nature. .
BTW: the mounted archers and mounted spear riders of Rohan in the "Lord of the Rings" movie, that are mostly women.
You seriously used a LOTR refernce to prove some sort of point? You actually went there.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Can someone who's read the detail confirm my understanding that whatever you do with two female mice, you can only get daughters? Have I got it wrong about Y-DNA?
We never had a march where all the women could finish. Not one. The women didn't have to carry a pack or a weapon.
Anecdotal, sure, but true none the less.
It goes without saying, of course, that the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature. :)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."
-- Svante Arrhenius
Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago.
No, it was after 1970, nothing shows she has ever changed her opinion, but good try.
It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it.
Lies. Although mentioned wiki page does try to elaborate how peaceful and non-hateful of her that idea is, as it would have been achieved by "reproduction technologies", she was "a pacifist" after all.
The two other pieces in her speech are also notable, with all the "The Force is Female", "The Future is Female" and "wait, why are rebels ruled exclusively by women in Star Wars" going on, some, perhaps would understand why it could be, from the same speech:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
Close to 10% of men are probably weaker than even an average woman purely on the basis of chronic disease. More than 10% of men are obese office workers or basement nerds who've never worked out in their life. And at least 20% of women -- and men -- are fairly athletic and thus likely to be stronger than those who don't try.
This space intentionally left blank
BTW: the mounted archers and mounted spear riders of Rohan in the "Lord of the Rings" movie, that are mostly women.
You seriously used a LOTR refernce to prove some sort of point? You actually went there.
He did, lol!
Anyway, if we MUST go there ... that's the movies. In the books, Eowyn has to disguise her identity to go with the men to war, because she's a woman.
It's even a significant plot point; there is a prophecy that no man can defeat the baddie, but then, she is no man ...
I found no mention of anything that you claim in your post, which is kind of funny given that you're bemoaning people for not reading something. I checked the version history in case someone had recently edited the Wikipedia page, but it was last edited on September 29, so it would not have changed between when Kartu wrote his/her post.
The quote that the original poster provided is at the very end of the section on her writing. Earlier in that section it mentions some of her more recent fictional work: "She wrote two books as part of the Earthkeep trilogy, The Kanshou, published in 2002, and The Magister, published in 2003. Both stories explore a dystopian world where women outnumber men, and humans are the only beings on the planet." It would seem that her later writing explores some of those same themes. Her bibliography on Wikipedia does not list other works after those, but it likely does not include everything she's written.
Perhaps she really has distanced herself from those ideas, but the Wikipedia page makes no mention of it, so I don't understand how you can fault someone for not reading information which isn't there. Also, the quoted has a reference indicating it was taken from "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" which was published in 1982, which while quite some time ago, is not 1950 as you describe. Even if you want to argue that these were made prior to publication, the Wikipedia article indicates that she did not move to San Francisco until 1970 and only started teaching there in 1973. All of that is plainly stated in the Wikipedia article, but none of what you claim. I cannot find a digital copy of "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" online with a quick Google search so I cannot verify myself that the purported claims in there, but several other sources of information on the internet seem to corroborate the idea.
And you've been modded "informative" which suggests that at least some people accepted it without checking. That's a great demonstration of bullshit is used to discredit a post, when the original information is exactly what it was purported to be. The existence of completely unfounded criticism makes people think the original claim is bunk, so they don't bother to check.
Both stories explore a dystopian world where women outnumber men
Sounds like she thought it was a terrible idea.
You are right thought, it was only about 45-50 years ago she made those statements. Long before she wrote the above.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you're comparing female to male couch potatoes, sure that may well be. And of course someone who's been doing a physical activity regular for some time will have an advantage over someone who does not, regardless of gender. But if both male and females spend the same amount of time working at a given activity, *in general*, the differences are absolutely staggering. This can easily be seen in sports, both professional and amateur. I'm about 5'5", 135 lbs and play basketball... not really the greatest sport for my stature, but hey I love the game. Anyways, my point is I'm more like the size of female players than male. But the difference in athleticism is readily apparent. Small sample size and anecdotal, I know, but it's also backed up conclusively by professional sports.
(Of course, there are the exceptional female athletes who are more athletic than most male athletes. But even they are unable, at the top levels of competition, to compete with the exceptional male athletes, at least in terms of pure athleticism.)
Intentionally suppressing puberty in a minor, who no matter how fashionable their view at the moment happens to be has NO FUCKING clue what they're doing or talking about.
How is that anything other than child abuse? Holy fucking hell, I weep for the future.
BTW: the mounted archers and mounted spear riders of Rohan in the "Lord of the Rings" movie, that are mostly women.
You seriously used a LOTR refernce to prove some sort of point? You actually went there.
He did, lol!
Anyway, if we MUST go there ... that's the movies. In the books, Eowyn has to disguise her identity to go with the men to war, because she's a woman.
It's even a significant plot point; there is a prophecy that no man can defeat the baddie, but then, she is no man ...
I thought it was a great plot trick too. An Aha! moment when you are immersed in the story.
But why a fair amount of folks cling to the idea that women are the equal of men in body strength is a real eye roller. There are simply some things that just aren't so, and why does everything have to be some sort of war between men and women?
Different qualities do not make one or the other better or worse. Men are in general larger, stronger, more violent and more competitive in the physical arena.
Women have their own sets of inherent attributes in general. Many of the attributes are obviously superior to males and serve as a valuable counterpoint and balance. And instead of celebrating those differences, they seem to want to either belittle them or claim they don't exist. Or that the Archers in LOTR were largely female.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Intentionally suppressing puberty in a minor, who no matter how fashionable their view at the moment happens to be has NO FUCKING clue what they're doing or talking about.
How is that anything other than child abuse? Holy fucking hell, I weep for the future.
It is most definitely child abuse, and is criminally unnatural. And of course, it targets young males as it's victims. The trick was bombarding the male children with the idea that they are mentally a female, then start the drugs. REad the story - it's a hoot and a tragedy at the same time. An epidemic of screwed up children they tried to make transgender (including a freaking 4 year old)
https://www.dailytelegraph.com...
Kinda like a bunch of feminist Mengale's running about. Thank goodness Australia cancelled the evil "safe school" program. Insanity, and they deserve punishment.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm not sure when the transition from it being sufficient to tolerate the delusions of others into forced participation occurred...
But i don't like it.
uh, finds a way
But that's the end slope of the bell curve where the athletes are, the slope that you and I are not on. I am not comparing myself to Usain Bolt or Florence Griffith-Joyner. There is also so much deviation that's it's pointless to look at the minor diffference in the "average". I would bet that the vast majority of women in the US armed forces are stronger than you.
Nonsense, our wives can fix our cars!
Science is SJW garbage? Did you even read the article?
Not just pretty close,but indistinguisable from XY men except with a test for chromosomes. Assuming only XX vs XY is mostly a 50s era concept. Most of what Y chromosome does is that it has some genes to turn off hormones at a critical fetal developmental stage.
We're may not actually be far from being able to reproduce without a woman as well. No one anywhere is talking about gettng rid of one or both genders.
The Third wave feminists and Mengele type trans kooks are the far left's equivalent of The far Right's White supremacist and conspiracy nuts.
The fucking 'alt-right' isn't trying to chemically castrate preteens. In fact, to the extent that the left seems to consider crimes of a sexual nature more terrible than run-of-the-mill violence these days, nothing done by post-civil war white supremacists (that I can find in a quick google search) was as bad as this. Even slaves weren't castrated except sometimes as punishment.
Oh fuck, You white supremacists hav a lot of suppressed memories. Tell me do you get an erection when you think about James Byrd Jr.. Drug behind a truck and ground to death. Look it up for your friday wanking fun. That was 1998, so hardly ancient history. Here's the cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
And y'all are still loving it! https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
And you white supremacists have the moooslims beat in modern day killings https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...
So lose the attitude. You supremacists and the SJW's are all the same, just different shit that you are mentally unhinged about.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In Soccer, the top women's teams regularly lose to barely post pubescent boys. ... you have point there I guess.
Sure, a boy scout group will defeat the US or the German women's soccer team
Trans athlets are not allowed in women's competitions ...
You seriously used a LOTR refernce to prove some sort of point? You actually went there. ... the actors are female.
That was not a LOTR reference that was a reference how the movie was made
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You tell me that, after I just got shaved?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ever watched "Gall Force"? It is an old Japanese anime where a bunch of women fight these immortal monster like alien creatures until they both destroy the entire known universe. over. and over. again.
I won't say anymore because it ruins the fun.
"VanDread" is also a load of fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In Soccer, the top women's teams regularly lose to barely post pubescent boys. Sure, a boy scout group will defeat the US or the German women's soccer team ... you have point there I guess.
Trans athlets are not allowed in women's competitions ...
So the citations I gave were fake news? Both wrestlers and track. Besides, if a person identifies as a woman, is it not terribly discriminatory to deprive them of every freedom that a non-trans woman has? That would be really bad - even inhumane.
You seriously used a LOTR refernce to prove some sort of point? You actually went there. That was not a LOTR reference that was a reference how the movie was made ... the actors are female.
That makes no sense. If you are claiming that it was merely actresses - well you can do anything in a movie.
But having been exposed to the not quite sane claim that all differences between male and female are social constructs, it is seriously time to give that crap up. If a female can do any work that she is capable of doing, then she should be able to. But the idea that she is capable of doing anything a man is capable of doing is as kooky as saying that any man can do anything that any female is capable of doing. And it is very demeaning to women.
And before you tell me that is a strawman, I hear that on television very often. And google GEnder social construct essay.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In olympics and world champion ships, people with an Y chromosome can not compete in women's leagues. This is like this since people can test for chromosomes. There are plenty of women that are naturally looking like woman, but aren't. They are sieved out for events like this.
Wrestlers is a show sport ... so it does not really matter, they even have "mixed teams".
That makes no sense. If you are claiming that it was merely actresses - well you can do anything in a movie.
Which part do you fail to grasp? They used female actors for horse riding male riders in armor with weapons, because they could not find enough male riders be "agile" and "fit" enough to ride with armor and arms.
I have no idea about your "gender problems" in the US.
The only problem I have/had are males preparing to get operated, but are not operated yet, demanding to use the women's dress room in my martial arts school. We only had this once: I told him to be 15 minutes early, an be out of the dress room before the first woman arrives. The second time s/he did not manage to be out of the room, the first woman entering threw him/her out. A few weeks later s/he did no longer come to the training. So no idea if s/he is now a woman or not ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In olympics and world champion ships, people with an Y chromosome can not compete in women's leagues. This is like this since people can test for chromosomes. There are plenty of women that are naturally looking like woman, but aren't. They are sieved out for events like this.
Wrestlers is a show sport ... so it does not really matter, they even have "mixed teams".
I'm not talking about professional Wrestling, which is scripted entertainment with athletes doing what amount to stunts. That's all fixed.
This is actual sport wrestling. I'm not certain where you are based, but in the USA, up to the college level, there is actual competition. After that, noth9ing professional, though some opt for Olympic wrestling. And the trasngender element has complicated matters. As soon as a male goes through puberty, he has a huge advantage in strength. So this is one reason some people support giving young boys puberty blockers (also, fairly typically after going through puberty, most young men become interested in women again. So when for some reason parents or teachers want young boys to be trans, they start drugging them. That was the legacy of the Australian "Safe Schools". The push to be a transgender by these unbalanced individuals is similar to the bizzare "facilitated writing" movement. But back to the comments, there is such a thing as wrestling
And back to the comments if a person wants to live as the opposite sex, they can, and that's fine. But no amount of want changes their genetic makeup.
Which part do you fail to grasp? They used female actors for horse riding male riders in armor with weapons, because they could not find enough male riders be "agile" and "fit" enough to ride with armor and arms.
Give me the citations that they simply could not fiond agile and fit males. You just make shit up as you go along to suppport your silly arguments.
I have no idea about your "gender problems" in the US.
I have zero problems with a person identifying as something else. If angelo'sphere identifies as a bisexual cross between a horse and a bandersnatch, I'll celebrate your identity.
A personally am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
The only problem I have/had are males preparing to get operated, but are not operated yet, demanding to use the women's dress room in my martial arts school. We only had this once: I told him to be 15 minutes early, an be out of the dress room before the first woman arrives. The second time s/he did not manage to be out of the room, the first woman entering threw him/her out. A few weeks later s/he did no longer come to the training. So no idea if s/he is now a woman or not ...
Funny, in this matter, I am more - I guess the word is progressive - than you. I support a changing area for people who are not the same. Anyhow, I feel really bad for the changeling.
But really - what did this woman think the soon to be changed person was going to do? It's a dead lock that she's been in a dressing room and naked with women who are contemplating having sex with her. This guy who is getting ready to change is most likely not. People are so silly.
No, matters like that are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about some pretty straightforward matters of sex based differences in physiology. Matters that like are hardly negotiable. The differences be tween the sexes are all social constructs crowd are simply wrong, and the outliers are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And back to the comments if a person wants to live as the opposite sex, they can, and that's fine. But no amount of want changes their genetic makeup.
"Which part do you fail to grasp? They used female actors for horse riding male riders in armor with weapons, because they could not find enough male riders be "agile" and "fit" enough to ride with armor and arms."
Give me the citations that they simply could not fiond agile and fit males. You just make shit up as you go along to suppport your silly arguments.
What citation? Just buy he DVD and watch the add ons: "the making off" It is not a secret.
Funny, in this matter, I am more - I guess the word is progressive - than you. I support a changing area for people who are not the same.
No you are not more progressive. You simply don't grasp: there is/was no space for two more changing rooms. And by law, a "still male" about to be "changed to be female" considering himself female, has the right to change in the female dress room. Similar for opposite changes. And a mixed room for both changes would not cut it.
No, matters like that are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about some pretty straightforward matters of sex based differences in physiology. Matters that like are hardly negotiable. The differences be tween the sexes are all social constructs crowd are simply wrong, and the outliers are the exceptions that prove the rule.
And I was not talking about this at all.
I simply stated: women and men who train, are of similar strength and speed with similar body weight. ... and I emphasized that this particularly true for martial arts.
And a woman who trains is always stronger and faster than a man who does not train
Yes, there is a difference, like 10% or so, between people who train.
Woman 100m sprint record: 10.49
Men 100m sprint record: 9.58
Woman marathon record: 2:15:25 (mixed men and woman) and 2:17:01 (women only).
Men marathon record: 2:02:57
For all practical purpose that is not a big difference. But perhaps you consider it a big difference and hence we never agree :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No you are not more progressive. You simply don't grasp: there is/was no space for two more changing rooms. And by law, a "still male" about to be "changed to be female" considering himself female, has the right to change in the female dress room.
The problem of course, is that there are people in this world who have hangups. And if for some reason some woman thinks a trans person is going to do something to her in a changing room, or simply doesn't want that person, it makes for the sort of problem that places like Papa John's Pizza or Hobby Lobby have.Politics should stay out of it. We can't legislate non-bigotry.
Customers equal money, and the pre-op trans money is as good as the women who are creeped out money.
Is it ridiculous? You betchya. But I suspect that a lot of people have some latent scat and urine fetishes. They spend way too much time equating rest rooms and sexual intercourse. Meanwhile that intersex person just wants a place to change.
Woman 100m sprint record: 10.49 Men 100m sprint record: 9.58
Woman marathon record: 2:15:25 (mixed men and woman) and 2:17:01 (women only). Men marathon record: 2:02:57
For all practical purpose that is not a big difference. But perhaps you consider it a big difference and hence we never agree :D
Interesting - you train martial arts and think that those differences are insignificant? Mkay.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Interesting - you train martial arts and think that those differences are insignificant? Mkay.
Yes they are.
A woman with ten years martial arts training will beat the shit out of a man with 1 year or 3 years.
Is a woman with 10 years martial arts training equal to a man with 10 years training? In raw power likely not, in technique: yes. Hitting a target 400 yards away with a gun or a bow is a matter of training, not a matter of raw physical power.
Hitting your yaw at the point where you are knocked out, is a matter of speed mostly. And on a distance of about one yard, the jab of a woman is fast enough to knock out every man. Regardless of his martial art training. Being stronger (30%?) and faster (10%?) makes you not invulnerable to a hit.
And topping this: never underestimate a woman with a dagger or a sword ... she simply slices and dices you as quickly as a man would.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A woman with ten years martial arts training will beat the shit out of a man with 1 year or 3 years.
I believe that is the effect of training, is it not?
Is a woman with 10 years martial arts training equal to a man with 10 years training? In raw power likely not, in technique: yes.
And? I'm not arguing that women do not have physical skills, or are unable to master technique. In matters of dexterity, they generally excel over males, although there is some correlation with size. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... But I'm not certain that particular experiment is applicable to all dexterity factors.
While some want to turn this into male against female, that is just silly. It refutes evolution with as much aplomb as creationism. In general, women are smaller and without as much raw strength as men. Their physiology lends itself toward reproduction in matters o pre-natal organ and skeletal adaptations and post natal food production. Males are in general larger, stronger, and their contribution to reproduction is mostly in providing a support structure. But the male is completely replaceable, if the first one dies defending the woman and children, another one can be plugged in with little problem.
The very strange thing is that females, as the most important part of humanity, seem hell bent on emulating the less important, disposable utility part of the duo.
A lot of this might be attributable to the fact that humanity is not anywhere near the brink of extinction, so reproduction isn't as critical an issue as it once was. And that's good. If a woman is interested in things other than reproduction, she's able to pursue them. But denying evolution and it's effects is silly. Perhaps the feminists who are dosing young boys with puberty inhibitors will start daily dosing of young girls with testosterone as a next step. They do seem to have an affinity for chemical intervention.
And topping this: never underestimate a woman with a dagger or a sword ... she simply slices and dices you as quickly as a man would.
Starting to entertain violent thoughts now, eh? Relax, homie. This is just conversation.
You like movies - here's my response to your violent themed reply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In olympics and world champion ships, people with an Y chromosome can not compete in women's leagues.
Breaking News! You are wrong. Rachel McKinnon (shown), an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston, who started life as a man, but now identifies as a woman, has won the women's only 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles on Sunday.
McKinnon, is very very proud of defeating the women, and tweeted “First transgender woman world championever,”
And make no mistake, if you have any sort of reservations, Rachel has branded you a transphobic bigot.
Source: https://www.thenewamerican.com...
So celebrate with us as males say they identify as women, and we must allow them to compete in women's sports. Rachel demands it!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.