The old biogical gender stereotypes of lustful males and "innocent" women are a bit long in the tooth. The biological genders are not that different, with lustful women and "innocent" men just as likely but all forced to fit a single mold.
Men and women being held as exactly the same for ideological reasons is just as foolish as Victorian rangers killing all the wolves, because wolves are bad. There are clearly biological differences on average, or in some cases, in an overwhelming majority of cases.
But to your point, women certainly aren't fundamentally innocent.
Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat, because "that's what we know is true". Males and females are known to take on similar activities and exhibit similar behaviors, showing that the stereotypical behaviors were not caused by the underlying biology.
But yes, there are certainly biological differences.
(Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat
I think you need to look in the mirror for flat-earth-esque attributes there. (Or maybe young earth is a better analogy?) Are you saying all biology citing male-female differences in animals is also false? Or are you saying that human are somehow exempt because of our intelligence?
Smells like ideological wishing!
(Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
You're missing a key point of the analogy here. Left as a self-awareness exercise to the student.
If you are using the presence of differences not related to ours in other species as proof that our common differences in our behavior is biological, then it's going to be uphill from here.
Animal behaviors are all over the place. E.g., lionesses being the hunters, female apes reversing their rear ends into the faces of every male in the group until one bites, birds where the male is usually responsible for the chicks, female insects being much larger and eating the male, female fish absorbing the entire male to become a permanent part of their body, and animals that can change their sex at will. Unless you feel a need to groom your friends fur for bugs to eat, I wouldn't use other species as models for human behavior.
---
There are biological differences between the sexes, but when both sexes exhibit same behavior and preferences (even if numbers differ) despite positive enforcement of stereotypical behavior and preferences, then that is pretty conclusive evidence contrary to those being biological in nature.
The differences will at most, introduce a bias in the distribution. Similar to the other arguments about sports.
---
Now, as a fun exercise, try reading just these last two paragraphs between the lines, and see how the snarkiness at the beginning of my comment added nothing substantial but just detracted from the argument, making you upset and unreceptive from the start. This was the same I was trying to (but failed) to exemplify when I copied the format of your previous comment. Right or wrong, it doesn't help get a message across.
Either way, that's all from here. Have a nice day.
Animal behaviors are all over the place. E.g., lionesses being the hunters, female apes reversing their rear ends into the faces of every male in the group until one bites, birds where the male
Arrgh. No, human behaviors don't have to be the same across species. Who in their right mind holds THAT opinion!?
Okay lose big points for good faith and intellectual honesty.
The differences will at most, introduce a bias in the distribution.
Sure!
Now, as a fun exercise, try reading just these last two paragraphs between the lines, and see how the snarkiness at the beginning of my comment added nothing substantial but just detracted from the argument, making you upset and unreceptive from the start.
You seriously need a mirror. Project much?
This was the same I was trying to (but failed) to exemplify when I copied the format of your previous comment. Right or wrong, it doesn't help get a message across.
Arrgh. Would you please go back and re-read!? Please try and find your projection! What you phrase of mine as an "argument," isn't, and shows exactly where you're making it!
Basically, you projected me saying something was your position, then mistakenly proceeded whatever this stuff above was.
This is a myth, often mixed with myths around color blindness and color vision.
For peripheral vision, it's important to note that only the fovea - a tiny dot at the very center of our vision covering 1.5 degrees field of view - has the ability to resolve details and strong color. The rest is an out-of-focus, low-resolution, monochrome mess: at 6 degrees you're at a quarter visual acuity, and at 30 degrees (1/16th acuity) things start to fall off even faster.
Note that our vision is not like looking through camera - you think your peripheral vision has color and detail because your visual cortex fills it in with its representation of what it saw or expects to see.
Even if women had more rod cells in their peripheral vision (either from more cells in total or fewer cells in the important fovea), they'd just get slightly higher resolution out-of-focus monochrome. To cure the blurriness, their cornea and lens would need to be vastly different.
For color vision, biological males (usually) only have one X chromosome, and mutations to cone cell related genes is "fatal": if it mutates slightly it just offsets color sensitivity, if it mutates too much it may cause a loss of sensitivity to a primary color altogether.
Biological females (usually) have two X chromosomes that each contain the necessary genes. If one mutates, it only a affects some cone cells. If it mutates slightly, you get tetrachromacy - sensitivity to a fourth primary color and stronger color perception at the cost of some light sensitivity to the original primary color. If it mutates fatally, it just means lost light sensitivity for that color - not lost color perception. This is not too dissimilar to how we became trichromatic - red and green are very close in the spectrum because one is likely just an old mutation of the other.
Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa.
Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis. Being exceptional at basketball seems to require being tall, and being exceptional at tennis seems to require a strong upper body, and having a greater representation of a gender will increase the likelihood that their outliers are in the set - and highly competitive sports are solely for outliers.
Being a male does not make you tall, it makes you somewhat more likely to be tall. But being a male doesn't change that I'd get sore neck talking up to female basketball players like Margo Dydek (218cm) and be absolutely destroyed in a match, or the fact the worlds tallest woman at 247cm would have made the average male look like a child.
Being male does not make you strong, but it gives you a slight advantage in growing strong (possibly including higher chance of experiencing a childhood that was more conductive to early muscle and bone growth). But being a male doesn't change that athletic and muscular sportswomen would consider my otherwise decent rather pathetic, and that no amount of dedicating my life to the cause would ever get me near the levels of a peak sportswoman.
Greater chance to have been born an outlier, not a benefit to the majority that weren't. Averages are misleading.
What is the overlap? That is, what percentage of women are equally as strong as some significant percentage of men? If it's 5%, that's much different than 25% or 50%.
I'm pretty sure it depends on which muscles we're talking about. Lower body is more equal than upper body, and I expect it's much more specific than that.
