Proposal: GE humans such that woman and men are the same size/strength. Any downside?

Suppose we engineer humans so that women and men are the same physical size and strength on average. I believe that this would drastically reduce things like sexual violence and harassment. I’ll assume we engineer women “up” rather than men “down”, such that men stay the same size and strength as now, and women of the next generation would be as large and strong as men, on average.

The only downside I can see is that we’d need a bit more food, because larger and stronger people eat more than smaller/weaker people, on average. Any other downsides? Any social or cultural downsides, beyond some men no longer feeling like the stronger sex?

Clarifying question. When you say ‘engineer’, do you mean through actual biology (with the attendant side effects), or do you mean ‘by magic’? Because biological methods of increasing size and strength generally do other stuff, too (think steroids).

I mean genetically engineer. I’m assuming we could do so, of course. I’m also assuming that we could do so without negative biological effects – I’m curious about any other sorts of negative effects.

One, and AFAIK the main, reason men tend to be physically bigger/stronger is more testosterone. You would have to seriously mess with the hormonal differences and I’m not sure the results would be worth it.

I think the most interesting thing to note here is think about the edits you’d make initially. You’d tweak genes related to growth to cause women to produce more growth hormones during development. This would give them the same height as men.

Ok, now, you’ve got new problems created. Human hearts scale badly - physically larger hearts seem to result in more premature deaths from heart failure. Right off the bat, this little tweak of yours would shorten the lifespan of these women a little bit. (since you would not have tampered with testosterone levels, these women wouldn’t be as likely to have blocked coronaries, probably, but larger hearts have other reliability problems)

Ok, the next problem I can think of is that human skin doesn’t handle prolonged mechanical loading all that well, especially the skin on women, and this is a major factor in determining relative beauty. These new women with bigger bodies would probably have more problems with cellulite (since they have more skin area on their thighs and therefore more loading) and breast sag and other significant cosmetic issues.

Ok, now you want to fill in some of this extra tissue with muscle so these women have the same strength. It’s a really bad idea to tamper with sex hormones if you want these women to stay women, so you’d need to instead tamper with the muscles themselves. I’ve read of several methods, but myostatin gene knockouts create some very dramatic images. You indicated a desire to make men and women equal, so you’d have to do something to tone it down a bit.

Your new problem is behavioral. One reason it is possible for men to victimize women is that women have instinctual behaviors that don’t always result in them fighting to the limits of their physical abilities (which are considerable, even if weaker than men on average). They may submit to an attack in order to protect their body from damage, when kidnapped there’s theories that they may even feel emotional attachments to their kidnapper. The Savannah hypothesis says that during the human evolutionary past, it was common for a tribe to kill all the men of another tribe and steal their women, and according to this hypothesis it makes sense for women to have evolutionary instincts to respond correctly in this scenario.

Tampering with human instincts is beyond the level of current human ability now or in the foreseeable future. This is because there are too many difficult to model elements between any actual genetic changes and the results in an adult human. Any codon changes you make become changes to the structure of a protein, which during development interacts in hideously complex ways with other proteins which in some way results in default neural pathways that in turn interact with other brain systems and eventually, years and years later, you end up with a human being who behaves a certain way but only in a statistical sense. Creating the desired behaviors would be more than just cut and paste - you would probably need the ability to design novel proteins used in the brain to stimulate the development of new neural circuitry that somehow results in your desired changes. This would probably require understanding and abilities closer to a god than anything resembling present day humanity.

I think a better move is to have everyone wear around body worn cameras, all of the time. Everything will be recorded, always. In a society with this kind of transparency, the light of truth will stop more abuse than any other measure.

That, and implanted weapon implants. I’ve always figured that the hot chicks of 2150 might appear defenseless but will actually pack entire arsenals of weaponry hidden in various places inside their bodies. A little bit more upper body strength is no match for integrated claws, taser implants, the ability to execrete tear gas…

The biological concerns are interesting, but they’re not what I’m asking about. There’s nothing about being female that necessitates lesser size and strength – many (though not most) species of animals have larger and stronger females. Further, we know that female chimps and gorillas are much stronger than human males, so there’s nothing about apes that means women must be as small and weak as human women.

So I’m assuming that, with sufficiently advanced genetic engineering technology, we could make women as large and strong as men without changing how their brains work, how their reproductive abilities work, etc. And then I’m wondering about any downsides as far as society or culture is concerned.

This isn’t a “we should do this” thread – it’s a “what would happen if we did this” thread.

But domestic violence might increase.

Men attack each other at least as much as they attack women, and if women were as aggressive as men, they would attack men more than they do now.

Regards,
Shodan

Far easier and much more beneficial to the human race and to the planet, then, to change men, not women. I’d say, if you want to keep the testosterone thing going, make men not just the same size as women, make them smaller. Maybe 3/4ths size on average. Like hawks.

Then when a guy pulls any of that testosterone shit, a couple of women can just calmly pick him up and carry him out of the room, give him a time out.

I’m liking your idea.

This is the kind of answer I was looking for. Though I’ll note that I didn’t stipulate that the aggression of women would change.

Even without any change in aggression, it definitely sounds plausible that there could be some increase in woman-on-man domestic violence, but I think this would be more than made up for by a drip on man-on-woman domestic violence.

But thanks for the kind of response I was hoping for.

I hate to fight the hypothetical–I’m sure I’ve posted many more than you–but assuming that such engineering could be done without negative biological effects is basically saying “do it by magic.” We certainly don’t have the skill to do such a thing now.

As for other sorts of negative side effects: I can’t say what would happen if Athena came down from on high to make all women and men the same approximate size or strength, but I doubt even She is wise enough to foretell the effects of such a swift and radical change in humanity, and I’m certain humankind is not.

Are we going to handwave away all the, er, “awkward” implications of forced genetic engineering?

I recognize this – I’m assuming advanced technology.

Can’t you speculate? For fun? I’ll defer to your mastery of all things hypothetical, if there are barriers in my OP that I haven’t thought of.

Yep! Let’s assume it happens – maybe a super villain did it with strategic applications of gorilla DNA for size and strength administered into all with 2 X chromosomes, or something.

Shodan’s already hit the big one. If you’re making women as big and strong as men, you’re probably gonna increase their aggression level too.

What if we don’t, though? What if it’s just size and strength, with the same minds and brains?

Then violence against women will be a form of bullying, and I doubt if it will decrease much. Given roughly equal size and strength, the person who wins a street fight is the angrier one.

Regards,
Shodan

I think rape would be substantially reduced if the victim was as physically strong as the attacker, on average.

I’m all in favor. It would even out the obvious societal advantages and disadvantages. We wouldn’t need separate sports leagues or Olympic games. It would tend to help other societal inequalities. It would put an end to discrimination in the military: women would go right in to combat with no foolish excuses.

Of course, it would take time for empowerment to “trickle up.” Conventional illusions of women as less powerful would continue to leave many women content not to strive for higher levels of access and success.

And rape certainly wouldn’t go away; it would just tend to require two guys instead of just one. Or…one with a knife. As noted, there are some behavioral and instinctive differences between the sexes; men would still be more aggressive in some ways. So there might remain a signal disparity in the numbers of men and women who are CEOs of major corporations, where an aggressive personality is correlated with success.

I see no downside whatever. Speaking personally, I’d be happier with a life-mate who was closer to my height anyway. The convention that the wife is nearly always shorter than the husband always made me unhappy. Why not equals?

Given these stats on domestic violence, where I’m eyeballing the rate as a 2:1 or 3:1 female:male victim, you might see more men being hurt/killed by their female partner. Of course, you might also see fewer women killed (a larger body can take more abuse), so the ratio of violent incidents might go to 1:1.

I wonder if there’s an underreporting issue here? OK, domestic violence is underreported in general, but I wonder if it’s more underreported by males who want to “tough it out” and not admit they were “hit by a girl”.

If the harassment is verbal (not physical,) then increasing a woman’s size or strength wouldn’t help her much - she can’t legally beat up someone for an offensive remark.

However, the increased size and strength might intimidate some men - or make her less attractive (most men don’t like women as equally big or buff as they) - so maybe those two factors would reduce harassment.