Can someone kindly point me in the direction of some facts/stats about the physical differences between men & women?

[kickassangel]

Apart from the obvious?

I'm sure I read on a thread here, that women are only weaker physically when considering upper body strength.

So, are women broadly speaking as strong as men in their lower bodies?

I've also heard, but not seen facts about, women being better at endurance sports beyond certain levels (e.g. races longer than a marathon).

Cos I'm thinking that
a) if 2 people (male & female) of same age, weight, fitness etc were compered - would they in fact be similar in strength/speed
b) I'd love to see the results of men & women raised equally to see if they in fact turn out to be more similar wrt height, weight etc.

But I have no idea where to start looking. Please help.

oo, exciting

that's going in the cart

kickassangel -

There isn't really a sliding scale of sex. Yes there are people with intersex conditions, but the vast majority of people are either male or female.

It is not like height, or hariness or ASD where there is a continuous level of variation accross the population.

I don't think the existance of rare intersex conditions means that there is a sliding scale. Its like....Most people are singles, and some are twins. A very few people are born as conjoined twins, but it doesn't mean there is a sliding scale between singles and twins.

KAA, if people want to be a third group which does not recognise their biological sex, then it is up to them to create a pronoun and other labels for that group. I think to say that people don't want a label is not going to work. How are we meant to refer to people who refuse to have any pronoun, not even one they have chosen for themselves?

But that doesn't change the fact that there is not, in reality, a sliding scale in biological sex. You would simply be creating a new social binary between people who want to be identified by biological sex and people who don't. It doesn't change the physical reality that almost everyone has a male or female body.

Ok, so what IS the definition of being male or female then?

I'm happy to admit that I threw in a comment based on the conference, which had got me thinking, but I am thinking on my arse here, and willing to be persuaded. But considering that Simone de Beauvoir spends a considerable amount of 'The Second Sex' discussing just what is meant by female, and whether or not there is even a definition for male/female that's accurate, I do think that this is worth discussing. In fact, it is the beginning of her argument that women are perceived as being lesser, just because they are seen as being 'other', whereas there isn't a fixed biological definition of male/female which applies to all people and definitely doesn't apply to all species.

Isn't a 'male' human one with XY chromosomes and a 'female' human one with XX? I think himalaya's point about singles, twins and conjoined twins is really good here - there is a fixed definition of single and twin births and none of us is confused by it, despite the existence of conjoined twins.

I think it's reasonably easy to come up with an accurate definition of what male and female mean, but harder to say what 'man' and 'woman' mean (because IMO that includes lived experience), and nearly impossible to say what 'masculine' and 'feminine' mean.

Personally I would be happy never to use 'masculine' and 'feminine', and just to use 'male' and 'female', but I do feel strongly that there is a place for a term like 'man' or 'woman' that refers not only to chromosomes and genitals but also the way that person has lived and been brought up. It does shape my life that not only was I born with XX chromosomes but I was also recognized as a child who would grow up female and would (if my body functioned according to plan) be capable of menstruating and having children.

The definition of male and female is based on whether or not a person has male or female reproductive potential. We make a decision on this based on whether or not a person is born with male or female genitals. Of course we could be surer of that by putting babies through scanning machines, but that seems rather unnecessary given the very small margin of error. There is not doubt a very tiny proportion of people born who don't fit this description, but that is rather like saying we shouldn't class people as bipeds because some people don't have two legs. We can still create situations of equality for those people without changing the biological classification of humans.

The vast majority are XX or XY, but there are a few other chromosomal intersex possibilities. Is a transsexual XY after full hormone and surgery still 'male' though - she probably would dispute it, and the legal status presumably depends where you live. So even with sex a simple male/female divide really isn't 100% possible.

Its gender/sexuality which have sliding scales. For most purposes these are what matter. Even on the issue of the ability to bear children, is a transsexual XY really 'male' or (what I guess she'd self-define as) an infertile female?

I think these discussions get bogged down in such details. Bottom line is everyone is a unique individual with their own set of physical, mental abilities and that any discrimination based on arbitrary classifications and generalisations is wrong.

The definition of male and female is based on whether or not a person has male or female reproductive potential. We make a decision on this based on whether or not a person is born with male or female genitals.

anyone who has ever had fertility issues is probably wincing at that. Far too simplistic. A boy may have a willy but zero reproductive potential if it turns out he can't make fertile sperm. Not sure from your definition if he'd be classified as truly male or not.

People with fertility issues are included in the terms female or male reproductive potential.

There is no reason to wince at it. I'm asthmatic. I don't wince at standard explanations of human lung function or the human immune system, just because I haven't got it and not having it could kill me. I don't try and insist that society pretends there is no real definition of what lungs are and the lungs are somehow an undefined, unclear concept. I just expect society to help me fulfill my potential and accommodate me and include me in society with the issues that I have.

Also, baby boys don't make sperm, so they all have the same reproductive potential at birth.

People with fertility issues are included in the terms female or male reproductive potential

are they? Its not at all obvious that's what the term would mean. A baby boy or girl born without some necessary part of the reproductive system would have zero 'reproductive potential'.

IMO its not a helpful definition.

Grimma, gender has a sliding scale in terms of socially constructed behaviour.

Transgender isn't about socially constructed behaviour. It is about having a core/inner gender which is different to the person's assigned sex at birth. Inner gender on a sliding scale between extreme male and extreme female is going to exclude a massive proportion of the population who have no core/inner gender.

The UK government's solution to transgender MTF individuals has been to say that people who have a sex change operation and live 'as a woman' (and what living as a woman means is defined by their medical panel!) are allowed to have their assigned sex changed on their birth certificate, while the government also acknowledges that they have changed gender and that it is impossible to really change sex.

This seems to me hugely problematic (not that I'm coming up with an alternative solution) because many MTF transgender people may have just as strong a feeling of feminine core/inner gender, but not want to conform to the stereotypes that society feels represents that feminine gender, and most trans people don't want surgery. There seems to be something wrong with a society that insists on surgery before people are allowed a label.

The only solution I can think of as it that in addition to male, female and a third group, people are able to label themselves as feminine, masculine, androgynous and non-gendered. So I would be a non-gendered female, somebody else on here might want to be an androgynous female, a masculine female or a feminine female. But clearly that it isn't going to please people who want to conflate sex and gender.

I think that Grumman is explaining things that I just fumble around at. I haven't said that there is no such thing as male and female, just that there are also people who don't fit into that model, and that there should be more acknowledgement of that.

I agree that we're getting bogged down in detail, but to discuss the differences without defining what we mean by m or f is also hard.

The example of lungs/twins etc kind of backs up my point,

The vast majority of people do fit into a clear definition of male or regular lung function or being a twin but some don't. We have vocabulary and discussions about those who don't, but we don't even have a vocabulary for people who don't fit into male or female. We just say that they have to be one or the other.

If we use the chromosomes as a definition, we can at least come up with some categories - 2 major ones and a couple of sub categories.

If we use the existence of reproductive surgery then it really is a sliding scale. Right from Mana Duggar at one end (19 kids and counting) through various degrees of infertility and post-op hysterectomy to tran- gendered person with male chromosomes no functioning reproductive parts, and (depending where they live) female on their passport.

Again, I am not trying to say that m or f doesn't exist, but that other possibilities do as well and we need to include them.

Fwiw if I had asthma and was told that lung function worked one way and one way only and that there was no discussion, acknowledgement or awareness of any other types of lung function, then I would be worried and/or insulted

Sorry grimma only just seen what auto correct did to your name

Reproductive systems not surgery. I must get out of bed and use a laptop if I want to be coherent

The very tiny proportion of babies born who visibly don't have a functioning part of the reproductive system are classed as intersex, until they are old enough to make their own choices about surgery and medical interventions or not having them. That is a very different thing to having a reproductive potential that is uncertain. Every woman has a female reproductive potential that is uncertain unless they either produce offspring or have a range of medical tests when encountering fertility issues.

But there is a name for people who have biologically different reproductive organs - intersex. There is a name for people who have a particular type of lung capacity - asthmatics.

We don't say that just because asthmatics exist that lung function doesn't also exist, or that asthmatics are actually fish, or that fish and humans don't really exist, or that there is a sliding scale between fish and humans and some humans are more like fish than other humans.

There isn't a sliding scale of biological sex. There are people with female reproductive potential and people with male reproductive potential. The extent of that potential is uncertain. Then there are people with other, discrete conditions. Those conditions exist separately within their own right. They aren't on a sliding scale. They are different from each other.

I also think there are a wide range of specific names for specific intersex conditions, but those names are not widely known to the public because they are individually, extremely rare. I am sure there are many lung conditions which are also not well known to the public in the way that asthma is because they are extremely rare. Many people won't know enough about asthma to know the difference between different types of asthma and won't know exactly what brittle asthma is.

I think it is unlikely that we will ever start widely using the different categories of intersex people in public conversation, nor do I think that people who are intersex actually want that. It also seems that people who are intersex are pretty annoyed by queer theorists and other people with a gender axe to grind using their situation as a reason to change constructs around sex and gender which people with intersex conditions are not collectively calling for.

Yes, I agreed already biological sex states aren't a continuum.

Reckon there's too much labelling!

If I was applying for a job, I wouldn't want any of your suggested labels. All I'd want to specify is my relevant qualifications. Biological sex state should almost never need to be specified (exception might be if work involves teratogens).

Grimma, I understand what you are arguing, I just don't see on what basis you are arguing it, either in terms of biology or ethics.

Your biological sex isn't relevant for most job positions. Other than stating it for equal opportunities monitoring information, your biological sex plays no part in your job.

None of that changes the fact that biologically, being male or female or having one of a number of intersex conditions does exist, and that is an important part of people's lives in many situations.

Ethically, people have fought to have their labels recognised and defined by themselves, and the treatment they receive as a consequence is also something that they want to decide. Intersexuals don't want to be conflated with people who are transgendered. Transgendered people don't want to be conflated with women who have had a hysterectomy. Women who have had miscarriages don't want to be conflated with people who people who are intersex. These are discrete groups of people who are fighting for their rights.

If you want to declare yourself a non-sexed individual, that is up to you, but I don't see on what ethical grounds you have a right to claim that other people have no rights to their labels, or that you have a right to declare they don't exist as discrete groups, should be put on a sliding scale, or should exist only under the terms that you want to frame them, just because you personally don't like labels. Taking labels away doesn't stop specific groups needing specific medical treatment; intersex people don't suddenly stop having specific intersex medical problems during adolescence because you have taken away their label. Taking away labels doesn't end inequality or make any of these groups less different or marginalised when compared to the group who holds power. In short, it will never make any of us simply male.

I don't see on what ethical grounds you have a right to claim that other people have no rights to their labels, or that you have a right to declare they don't exist as discrete groups, should be put on a sliding scale, or should exist only under the terms that you want to frame them, just because you personally don't like labels.

er, I don't think I did - certainly didn't mean to! People have the right to self-label in any way they want. Its the imposition of labels which is objectionable.

milly i think actually we're not saying anything too vastly different. i'm arguing that the vast majority of people that are born are m/f, but that other possibilities do exist. In a discussion of the biological differences between m & f those people, however few, become quite significant, because they can help us to understand that common assumptions about what it means to be m or f are assumptions, rather than scientific fact.

You seem to be wiling to acknowledge that these people exist, but to almost discount them because so many others are more clearly defined. In a conversation about anything else, that wouldn't really btoher me.

but to work out the differences between men & women, we can't just ignore the few who actually demonstrate how some of those differences perhaps aren't as all-defining as we assume.

anyway, we've been discussing this one point for ages, and perhpas we just need to agree to disagree.

my question remains - what, then ARE the biological differences between men & women?

And which 'common sense' differences should we be challenging?

e.g I'm pretty convinced that the majority of men have stronger arm muscels than the majority of women.

I'm NOT even vaguely convinced that men are biologically driven to have a higher sex drive than wome - yet that seems to be an accepted 'truth' within society.

(apologies for crappy typing. I'm on the laptop now, but the cat insists on joing in)

I don't think I am discounting intersex people; I'm just disputing the idea that they exist on a sliding scale. I think they are several discrete groups. Those groups are as clearly defined as male and female in biological terms. Of course many intersex people will want to identify as male or female and not as intersex in everyday life, and they know their situation best and what is most socially comfortable for them.

If you think the existence of intersex people are a way of challenging common assumptions about males and females, you need to say what those assumptions are and how the experiences of intersex people are related to that. I don't know a great deal about people who are intersex and couldn't comment on their sex drives and how this relates to the sex drives of males and females.

I don't think men do have higher sex drives than women; I just think that heterosexual men want to have more penetrative sex than heterosexual women do, but that is a rather different thing to a sex drive.

Milly the point of the thread is to look at the different assumptions about sex and see whether they are right.

Re sex drive/preferences. I would love to see some facts about that. That is absolutely one of the areas that there are so many assumptions about and I would like to know how factually accurate they are