[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

I'm going to need a citation on that. I very much doubt even 25% of the men in the world could do what she does.

The big overlap is with the rest of the population. Of course little advantages in a population are going to be exaggerated if you only sample the top 1% of people!

[empthought]

You managed to reply to a whole comment thread without reading the existing citation, why do you need it repeated?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17186303/

> The results of female national elite athletes even indicate that the strength level attainable by extremely high training will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men.

The data from this study is helpfully visualized here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/alm...

You said "in any sport" and not bouldering, so this finding will apply. You can also consult the rest of the literature such as it is. Or spend some time in a mixed-sex group strength training program and just observe.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7253873/

> Results indicate that untrained men have greater upper and lower body strength than trained women athletes in terms of both absolute and relative strength.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> The results of female national elite athletes even indicate that the strength level attainable by extremely high training will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men.

Irrelevant, because it requires training, which is not at all what we're talking about when we're talking about the general population.

> Results indicate that untrained men have greater upper and lower body strength than trained women athletes in terms of both absolute and relative strength.

Let me know when half of men can iron cross their way across a difficult move with their "greater upper body strength".

[empthought]

The strength of strength-trained females being less than 50% of non-strength-trained males is not “irrelevant” at all.

You’ve chosen an arbitrary and niche sport and athlete because you literally don’t have any other examples at hand and have conveniently made it impossible to test. No one is foolish enough to boulder at this level without training.

She would lose a simple wrestling match against the vast majority of men regardless of their training.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Ok, so what's your point here? Men are just too dangerous to ever be allowed near women? Women need to have their own bathrooms to feel safe, even though peopel raping or otherwise assaulting the same gender happens too?

This is all a flimsy as fuck excuse to hate on trans people.

[empthought]

My point is that your claim that “The [strength] differences are not super significant” is clearly false (obvious to any child, really) and your climbing-specialist counterargument is insufficient to overcome that.

I don’t care about the rest of whatever you’re on about. Pseudoscientific nonsense is pseudoscientific nonsense no matter what the motivation or source, and I’m glad to see you’ve apparently conceded that your pseudoscience is nonsense and have moved on to the predictable red herring ad hominems.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> My point is that your claim that “The [strength] differences are not super significant” is clearly false

I disagree, but perhaps that's because the term "sexual dimorphism" was used, which is really a very minor effect in human biology compared to a lot of animals. Besides which, we have tools which can negate brute strength in a confrontation anyway.

> your climbing-specialist counterargument is insufficient to overcome that.

I concede this. I did not do a particularly good job making my case.

> have moved on to the predictable red herring ad hominems.

This entire thread is about trans people and the subject of "female safe spaces" was brought up as an argument against allowing people to transition. Forgive me if I assumed your arguments were ultimately in service to that, but you made no claim otherwise.