Watch in real time as Trans Reddit turns on one of it's own for suggesting that maybe they are biological men and arguing they are not makes them look unstable.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1t0t604/trans_girl_says_were_all_biological_males/

No they don’t. Biologically impossible no matter what quackery you quote. And I will decide who I am comfortable with in my safe spaces thanks very much. I’m certainly not justifying my trauma to you or any other stranger.

So because a man has told you he is actually a woman you believe him, despite the fact he won't or can't tell us what a woman is and despite the fact you said yourself you don't believe anyone can change sex.

No.

Apparently none of you can tell me what a woman actually is. Genderless, the same as a man in every way apart from the body.

SEX DIFFERENCES IN MUSCLE STRENGTH RELATIVE TO BODY MASS: A META-ANALYSIS

James Nuzzo & Matheus Pinto in pre-print March 2026

https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/777/version/970
pdf version: https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/777/1674

ABSTRACT

On average, human males have greater body masses and generate more muscle force than human females, and body mass and muscle strength correlate. Normalizing muscle strength to body mass (strength-to-body mass ratio) might mathematically eliminate the sex difference in strength, but this has not been examined on a large scale. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine if a sex difference exists in the strength-to-body mass ratio. We identified 78 studies that reported a total 352 effects comparing mean strength-to-body mass ratios in males and females. The total sample was 122,434 (61,042 males, 61,392 females). Grip strength was the most common test (21.9% of effects). The strength-to-body mass ratio was 25% greater in males than females (response ratio = 1.25 (95% prediction intervals (PI) [0.93, 1.67]). The strength-to-body mass ratio was 17% greater in males than females for lower-limb muscles (response ratio = 1.17 (95% PI [0.87, 1.59]) and 35% greater for upper-limb muscles (response ratio = 1.35 (95% PI [0.87, 1.60]). The strength-to-body mass ratio was 3% greater in males than females when 3-10 years old (95% PI [0.84, 1.27]), 9% greater when 11-13 years old (95% PI [0.89, 1.34]), 25% greater when 14-17 years old (95% PI [1.02, 1.54]), 35% greaterwhen 18-64 years old (95% PI [1.10, 1.66]), and 33% greater when ≥65 years old (95% PI [1.08, 1.65]). Thus, males generally have greater muscle strength than females even when strength is normalized to body mass. Factors other than body mass contribute to sex differences in strength.

-end-

Already at 14 years old, a male person on average has a greater strength to body mass ratio compared to female people of the same age. Therefore, it is highly likely that a boy taking estrogen from 15 years old, has already had a body that has developed strength advantages than a female person.

There is also evidence that muscle memory formed from being male contributes to physical advantages and this has come from the studies of children and their strength differences. Grip strength is known to have started to develop from an age that is earlier than male puberty.

There is no evidence that I can find that a male person who started estrogen at 15 has zero physical advantages over a female person. I can find studies that show that suppressing testosterone does not negate male pubertal advantages.

And the Olympic medical committee, with all the evidence available, has also made a very clear policy that not even male people who have had their puberty blocked from pre puberty are included in the female sports categories. If there was even a convincing modelling study done that showed that a male person with their testosterone fully suppressed from puberty and given estrogen instead lost their physical advantages over female people, they would have made exemptions for that in their sex testing policy.

It has already been posted on this thread.

A woman is an adult female born with a body formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether those gametes have been, will be or are being produced.

I love to read this sort of twaddle because it perfectly sums up the ludicrous thought processes of gender identarians.

'apart from the body'

Bodies are us. We are bodies. There is no 'apart from'. Transhumanism is a fantasy. Transgenderism is built on that fantasy. We cannot exist except in our bodies.

Human eunuchs were often notably tall.

Indeed. Castrati singers, who were castrated before puberty, are an example. They were usually quite tall, as a result of delayed fusion of the long bones of the legs.

When the skeleton of Gaspare Pacchierotti Pacchierotti (1740–1821), a famous castrato, was examined it was estimated that he was about 6’3″ tall. The delayed fusion was evident in Pacchierotti’s hip bone, which preserved the line of fusion at the iliac crest.

Incidentally, castrati were also affected by osteoporosis at a young age owing to the decrease in bone mineral density as a result of the lack of testosterone. Researchers found that Pacchierotti’s lumbar spine had several fractures, and that his leg and arm bones had low bone density, all related to osteoporosis.

A woman is an adult human who belongs to the female sex class. A man is an adult human who belong to the male sex class.

I'm pretty sure posters have been very patiently trying to explain that to you for ages now.

This is an argument about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, honestly. Sadly, I've not had a globally successful sporting career. It seems like it would be exciting. This metric has no social importance.

I am a statistically smaller to average woman.

I am <1% on both male statistical height and weight charts.

The fuckwittery continues.

A woman is an adult human with a body that is organised around the production of large gametes, whether those gametes will ever be produced or not.

Edited for autocorruption.

I obviously know that. I'm just shocked that you don't think our gender is a real thing. You're educated women, and you call yourselves feminists !

A woman is an adult human female. Simple.
Sex is real and immutable.
Gender is a set of stereotypes that vary from place to place and through out time (see Roman men in togas and Georgian dandies in wig, make up and highly decorated clothes). There is no fixed definition of male gender or female gender because they mean different things in different cultures.
What reason is there to separate places where bodily functions take place by gender rather than sex when it is the sex of the bodies that count not whether they can work the TV properly or not (or whether sexist clap trap you are using to define genders).

And it has been explained to you many times.

Just because you are statistically smaller than the average woman, doesn't mean that you do not have male physical advantages over a female person even taller and heavier than you.

The argument about those physical advantages is not 'about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin'. It is actually important as to why in part that you are excluded in the UK from female single sex provisions. Only partly though, the full reason is because you are male.

What is gender?

Top post. 🌟

Reading this and some of your other comments leads me to believe that you're more than a little confused by the discussion.

My sons are both >1% on the male height chart and probably not done growing yet. What category do they belong in? If the bottom centile of men aren't men surely the top centile isn't either.

There is a distinct lack of coherency in the posting.

All this wide eyed faux naivete, leading to this. What a surprise.
It ain't rocket science and you know it. Men are men, women are women, and some people like pretending to be the opposite sex. Some people go along with that pretence, and others prefer not to. Very, very few people pass as the sex that they are not, whatever you'd have us believe.

You honestly think feminists should believe women can't work TVs properly and ought to have long nails?

You're statistically taller than average (5'3") UK women. Skinnier though, lacking typical female body fat.

If your men have not stopped growing, then science is likely interested in studying them.

Female people require sex based accommodations due to our female sexed body and how society interacts with that female sexed body.

That includes 'dignity'. Because male people have male bodies and they have no understanding of what experiences female people have with their female bodies. Having privacy away from male people who cannot share any part of the female experience of having a female sexed body (ie. not even a male with extreme body modification has experience as a female person) is necessary for many reasons. Otherwise, there would be no sex segregation at all.

Female people don't require accommodations because we have a 'gender identity'. What even is a 'gender'?