To think it really is a man's world?

[TreatTreat]

We all know it is, but itv1 confirmed it even more for me today by calling the Euros tournament the 'women's euro tournament'. TV stations sure as hell don't introduce men's tournaments with their gender in the introduction.

Again, there's so much I could challenge here, but there's no point. Just two examples to sum up why, then I'm back to my coffee for good this time. I'm glad you're still enjoying the battle, but it's coming across to me as a little Hiroo Onoda, so I'm leaving it here now. I won't be back.

used to be previously based on the average male dimensions

This is wrong. It's not simply - or even primarily - about dimensions. I've explained this several times, and it's made clear in the 300- thoroughly researched pages you're dismissing. If I remember rightly, these pages also address the "counter-arguments" you're relying on from anon. on the internet and a half-remembered radio interview (ETA - NB. may not be remembering rightly, and friend has borrowed my copy so can't check - acknowledging fallibility, again, important).

At any rate, either you're not reading my posts properly, or you're not understanding them.

Re: "abusive". Your words: "That's just cos you're obviously a tool & can't contribute to the debate without trying to get personal. So right back at you!!"

I've resisted anything as direct as this throughout. It's been difficult. And that previous sentence is as close to "abusive" as I've come.

I'm in the cafe with my coffee, and am planning to stay that way. Once again, I wish you well.

You do remember correctly @Catiettethe book is balanced and draws upon a wide range of peer reviewed research as well as official data and statistics.
It’s not a ‘man bashing’ book and often points out that many of the issues don’t come about because men are purposely trying to exclude women but that they are historical practices or oversights. The book also address how things are changing and improving.

First off, if it is probable/demonstrable that women are more likely to be injured in car crashes because their bodies are less robust than males - surely that’s something to factor in to safely features and testing. You seem to be suggesting that shrugging shoulders and saying ‘oh well, can’t be helped’ is a reasonable response to that.
Secondly, you haven’t read the book. You have no idea if the author appears to imply anything - it may well be clearly and rigorously considered as part of their research. You wouldn’t know, you haven’t read it.
The smaller, lighter vehicles thing could well be a factor, and is presumably something both male and female drivers can consider when choosing such a car, but if they are more likely to be driven by women then perhaps their safety features should be tested to the average female body, rather than a man’s.