I don’t have to prove you wrong. You said that you can’t see a good reason there was a difference in many sports, it must be caused by a Male v Female societal difference. Since there are quite obvious physical differences, and you are not claiming any expertise in sports science or male-female brain morphology , I don’t feel very compelled by your hunch.
What? I just noticed you have “ice”(??) hockey on your list. You sir, should not be speaking on this subject at all if you think there’s no obvious physical advantage to men in hockey.
In archery it affects how far one can shoot, but for olympic events distances are fixed. I don’t think that using the distance at which female archers now shoot would provide the men with an advantage. It would remove part of the pleasure for those male archers who love explaining to the ladies that “we shoot further” (I know, it was explained on the first day and I’ve got eyes, I can see your butts are further).
But there definitely is a social difference (which like all social things varies by location): the first day of my intro course involved a lot of men very-carefully not looking in our direction and the only one who said something before lunch was an imbecile; both in clubs and in the few events I’ve attended I always see more male than female archers. The recent spate of archery movies has done a lot to change that but we’re talking about going from often-zero to a visible minority. So long as the pools are so biased, I’d at least like to have the option of having both ungendered and gendered events.
The reason there’s separate women’s events is because in 99% of events, they wouldn’t even be able to make the Olympics. Or, if you mandated a number of women had to be in the event, they would always lose by a ridiculous margin.
I have to assume** rat avatar** is kidding around when, for instance, he cites “ice hockey” as a sport women could compete with me in. I love women’s hockey but if you asked women to compete with men the skater, at least, would at best have a 50-50 shot of even making it to the end of the game.
I have endless respect for women athletes. They do amazing things. They cannot compete with men; it’s just not a fair contest.
You were claiming cognitive differences based on sex, I cannot prove the negative there, you have to show biological evidence for this extraordinary claim.
I am betting you are no Brittney Griner yourself, I know I couldn’t compete with her.
To presuppose some pseudoscientific biological traits when the reasons may be more social than physical does nothing to justify keeping this divide in the long term.
I remember back in the day, 03 I believe, Annika Sorenstam played in a men’s golf tournament, The Colonial Open. She had already won 42 LPGA career titles and was considered too good to play with women. The Colonial course is/was the shortest on tour registering about 350 yds longer than LPGA courses.
I thought it would be a great test because…yes, technically she is competing score wise with men but ultimately she is playing against the course and the course doesn’t know if you are a man or woman.
She had a good first round but in the end, she didn’t make the cut. She was literally the best female golfer in the WORLD and didn’t make the cut in a tournament where many big name players didn’t even play and many amateurs made the cut.
I’ve never really played darts but a sport that comes to mind where women could, if they are not already, compete with men is pool/billiards. It literally takes no strength and requires finesse. Allison Fisher comes to mind as someone who can hang and most likely hold her own in the sport of billiards including snooker.
Nobody wants to use a heavier sled in skeleton. That would be a major handicap in the start, which is very important - a quick rule of thumb is, all other elements (sled and runner quality, steering/driving skill, weight) being equal, a 0.1s start time difference results in 0.2s to 0.3s difference in finish time.
While the difference in shooting accuracy between top female and top male biathletes may be small, biathlon also includes a lot of skiing. As it happens, most of the typical biathlon race distances are used in both women’s and men’s races on virtually identical courses. There may be some differences in race format and penalty system (for instance, women receive a one minute time penalty for a miss in the 15 km race, while the men ski penalty laps), but nowadays all major biathlon races provide a very detailed statistics breakdown, including “pure skiing” and “pure shooting” times for each participant. Using that data, noticeable differences between the skiing performances of each gender are plainly visible.
Calculating the amount athletes are paid per hour by looking at the number of hours of actual competition is misleading. The vast majority of the required hours that athletes put in is in the training and practice, which would presumably be the same for men and women.
What does make sense is to compare what the prize money is compared to the revenue that the performances bring in. I have no idea how these compare for men’s and women’s tennis. (My recollection is that male tennis players were commonly paid more than female until people raised equality concerns and pressured the sponsors to change that.)
That is not “my own cite”, it’s a reply to the article by the people he dissed over their MRI study. I am pretty sure you won’t accept any cite so I think it’s not worth further effort.
No, I would accept one that shows that there are two distinct populations based on biological traits that limit the elites from either side from being equally competitive.
As you were the one claiming a unique male cognitive advantage, which is an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you who made that claim.
Demonstrate a near universal deficiency in brain function based on the XX chromosome and I will concede, but as these athletes are all exceptional examples minor differences in a population do not apply.
As an example, there is evidence that differentiation in upper body strength may have implications for some specific sports, but the near universal segregation in these events is not justified by that specific difference.
And why, precisely, is it an extraordinary claim? Men and women have well noted differences, you might have even noticed a few yourself. But the fact that they think exactly alike is the obvious and ordinary claim?
Thus the reason for science, or the systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. A set of tools to work around typical human cognitive bias.
Confirmation bias or the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories is a human failing.
Your claim is a systematic error of inductive reasoning.
You are on a SJW soapbox masquerading as a science pulpit. I never came to any conclusion – I said it’s not unreasonable to think there may be cognitive differences at play. I then showed an article showing pattern recognition differences, not good enough I have to show biological difference. I post an article discussing biological differences, not good enough because another researcher disagreed. I think I have shown that cognitive differences is not an extraordinary claim even if I can’t be sure it affects sports performance.
The brain is a physical organ governed by natural laws. You think evolution doesn’t impact the brain? Eliminate all gender categories for sports and other contests and we could see a proper sorting.