Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bleacher Report)   What does transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox and her penis have in common? Put 'em down for a loss   (bleacherreport.com) divider line 105
    More: Followup, TKO Major League MMA, MMA, mixed martial arts, The Ultimate Fighter, martial artists  
•       •       •

2141 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Oct 2013 at 10:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 10:22:55 AM  
It's almost like strength and size alone aren't enough to win an MMA fight.  Wow!  We've never seen this phenomenon before, EVER.  Certainly not ever in the history of the sport has a bigger, stronger fighter lost to a smaller, better fighter.
 
2013-10-15 10:27:52 AM  
I hope he never wins another one.
 
2013-10-15 10:34:45 AM  
Porn name
 
2013-10-15 10:37:09 AM  
She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?
 
2013-10-15 10:41:13 AM  

mediablitz: She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?


The guys who come in these threads and say that because Fox was born a man, she's going to be unbeatable by a woman?
 
2013-10-15 10:45:39 AM  
Did the dude get a second place trophy?
 
2013-10-15 10:47:24 AM  
Question: am I huge hypocrite asshole if I am totally for gay rights but remain prejudiced (and poke fun at) against transgender people?
 
2013-10-15 10:54:12 AM  
Is this like professional wrestling where you get to take the other fighter's belt or something because I would totally watch two women scrap over who gets to take home a penis in a jar trophy.
 
2013-10-15 10:59:49 AM  

lecavalier: Question: am I huge hypocrite asshole if I am totally for gay rights but remain prejudiced (and poke fun at) against transgender people?


They way I feel about this subject is a biological approach and not a social approach. Fallon was born male. Just because you inject hormones and cut off the penis doesnt make her a woman biologically. Males have superior body frames than women as expressed in Sexual Dimorphism throughout the history of the animal kingdom including humans. Men have better Tendon attachments, ligament attachments. We as men are built and bred for high physical activity. It's not even remotely fair to put a TG man in there with a woman just removing the penis.

All that being said, goes to show you what skill can do in a fight over brawn and muscle.
 
2013-10-15 11:14:35 AM  

lecavalier: Question: am I huge hypocrite asshole if I am totally for gay rights but remain prejudiced (and poke fun at) against transgender people?


yes
 
2013-10-15 11:17:40 AM  

lecavalier: Question: am I huge hypocrite asshole if I am totally for gay rights but remain prejudiced (and poke fun at) against transgender people?


Yes, but continue doing so anyway. There's a reason the transgendered are last when you refer them in the LGBT group.
 
2013-10-15 11:24:30 AM  

mentallo69: Males have superior body frames than women as expressed in Sexual Dimorphism throughout the history of the animal kingdom including humans.


farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-10-15 11:28:09 AM  

Theaetetus: mediablitz: She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?

The guys who come in these threads and say that because Fox was born a man, she's going to be unbeatable by a woman?


I don't know that people were saying that.... the point was (at least in my mind).... an "elite level" man WOULD always beat any woman, because of the physical differences.   In this case, Fox isn't an "elite level" male-born MMA fighter, so, a very elite level woman would have a chance (as we've seen).

It is more of an issue of the "bell curve" of the physical abilities between the sexes..... I mean, go look at almost any physical competition... elite men finish ahead/better than elite women.   Go look at any decently participating marathon... at least 10-20 or more, depending on the size of the field, men finish before the winning woman.   So, would it be "fair" for a born-male who is transgendered to run for the "womens" race results?  If so, then, why have men vs. women's results anyway... make it all one results table, and women won't ever finish higher than 20th.
 
2013-10-15 11:33:01 AM  

Theaetetus: mentallo69: Males have superior body frames than women as expressed in Sexual Dimorphism throughout the history of the animal kingdom including humans.


You don't believe men are superior athletically to women? Then why is there a WNBA? Why don't they have mixed gender mma matches?

Serena Williams, one of the greatest female tennis players ever, got owned by the #200 male tennis player.
 
2013-10-15 11:37:07 AM  

dletter: Theaetetus: mediablitz: She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?

The guys who come in these threads and say that because Fox was born a man, she's going to be unbeatable by a woman?

I don't know that people were saying that.... the point was (at least in my mind).... an "elite level" man WOULD always beat any woman, because of the physical differences.   In this case, Fox isn't an "elite level" male-born MMA fighter, so, a very elite level woman would have a chance (as we've seen).


I'm not sure I'd agree with that, particularly because "elite level" is an ambiguous term that you seem to define post hoc in a way that supports your argument, rather than having an objective definition first. Fox was undefeated after many professional fights, until now. That seems to be pretty elite.

It is more of an issue of the "bell curve" of the physical abilities between the sexes..... I mean, go look at almost any physical competition... elite men finish ahead/better than elite women.   Go look at any decently participating marathon... at least 10-20 or more, depending on the size of the field, men finish before the winning woman.

Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:
www.marathonguide.com

If you were correct and this was due to innate physical differences and the "'bell curve' of the physical abilities between the sexes", then those bell curves has drastically shifted over a mere 50 years: the women from this generation are significantly faster and stronger than the most elite male athletes from the last generation? If so, then we've just seen the greatest leap in evolution in that time period. That strains credulity.
 
2013-10-15 11:44:54 AM  

Theaetetus: dletter: Theaetetus: mediablitz: She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?

The guys who come in these threads and say that because Fox was born a man, she's going to be unbeatable by a woman?

I don't know that people were saying that.... the point was (at least in my mind).... an "elite level" man WOULD always beat any woman, because of the physical differences.   In this case, Fox isn't an "elite level" male-born MMA fighter, so, a very elite level woman would have a chance (as we've seen).

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, particularly because "elite level" is an ambiguous term that you seem to define post hoc in a way that supports your argument, rather than having an objective definition first. Fox was undefeated after many professional fights, until now. That seems to be pretty elite.

It is more of an issue of the "bell curve" of the physical abilities between the sexes..... I mean, go look at almost any physical competition... elite men finish ahead/better than elite women.   Go look at any decently participating marathon... at least 10-20 or more, depending on the size of the field, men finish before the winning woman.

Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:


If you were correct and this was due to innate physical differences and the "'bell curve' of the physical abilities between the sexes", then those bell curves has drastically shifted over a mere 50 years: the women from this generation are significantly faster and stronger than the most elite male athletes from the last generation? If so, then we've just seen the greatest leap in evolution in that time period. That strains credulity.


What about PEDs and better training now days?

Men are more athletic than women, that is just how it goes. Particularly in strength activities. At my gym, a very popular gym in my city, I've never seen a woman bunch more than 155 for a 1rm. And this woman had great lifting genes, worked hard fir a long time, etc. Most men that have been lifting a few months can easily do that
 
2013-10-15 11:45:47 AM  

Theaetetus: dletter: Theaetetus: mediablitz: She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?

The guys who come in these threads and say that because Fox was born a man, she's going to be unbeatable by a woman?

I don't know that people were saying that.... the point was (at least in my mind).... an "elite level" man WOULD always beat any woman, because of the physical differences.   In this case, Fox isn't an "elite level" male-born MMA fighter, so, a very elite level woman would have a chance (as we've seen).

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, particularly because "elite level" is an ambiguous term that you seem to define post hoc in a way that supports your argument, rather than having an objective definition first. Fox was undefeated after many professional fights, until now. That seems to be pretty elite.

It is more of an issue of the "bell curve" of the physical abilities between the sexes..... I mean, go look at almost any physical competition... elite men finish ahead/better than elite women.   Go look at any decently participating marathon... at least 10-20 or more, depending on the size of the field, men finish before the winning woman.

Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:
[www.marathonguide.com image 450x365]

If you were correct and this was due to innate physical differences and the "'bell curve' of the physical abilities between the sexes", then those bell curves has drastically shifted over a mere 50 years: the women from this generation are significantly faster and stronger than the most elite male athletes from the last generation? If so, then we've just seen the greatest leap in evolution in that time period. That strains credulity.


That is graph of one athletic event, the Marathon, which isn't so much about strength and speed, an area where women can beat men.    Marathon times are more driven by lifetime running miles than anything else.     The elite women marathoners are starting to run long distance at a younger and younger age.      It isn't even very controversial to say that in endurance events, within 50 years women may be faster than men.

That isn't the same as saying in 50 years, women will be the dominate players in the NBA and NFL.
 
2013-10-15 11:46:53 AM  

machoprogrammer: Theaetetus: mentallo69: Males have superior body frames than women as expressed in Sexual Dimorphism throughout the history of the animal kingdom including humans.

You don't believe men are superior athletically to women?


Inherently and immutably, or based on current levels of performance? As shown in the chart above, while men are faster at the marathon than women, one generation of participation has increased the ability of women to being significantly faster than men were one generation previously. Clearly, we're not talking about the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution creating an inherent difference, but differences in training.

Then why is there a WNBA?

Training, salary differences, etc.

Why don't they have mixed gender mma matches?

They probably should - give it a few more years.

Serena Williams, one of the greatest female tennis players ever, got owned by the #200 male tennis player.

When she was 17, yes. Be interesting to see now, after she's had another 15 years of training and practice. More importantly, as with the above chart, it would be interesting to compare her stats (serve speed, etc.) to the top male tennis player from the previous generation.
 
2013-10-15 11:49:26 AM  

machoprogrammer: Theaetetus: mentallo69: Males have superior body frames than women as expressed in Sexual Dimorphism throughout the history of the animal kingdom including humans.

You don't believe men are superior athletically to women? Then why is there a WNBA? Why don't they have mixed gender mma matches?

Serena Williams, one of the greatest female tennis players ever, got owned by the #200 male tennis player.


As I pointed out.... why do they have mens vs. womens results in running races?  Because elite men will always run faster than elite women.     Go show me a weightlifting record where women beat men...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weight l ifting

Outside of a few athletic things that women's bodies might be more adept to (possibly some gymnastic events)... I doubt theatetus can point out any sort of pure strength/endurance type of competition where women ever finish in front of truly "elite" men competing.  Even things that you wouldn't think should have as much to do with strength/endurance as things like running, weightlifting (ie, bowling)... elite men have higher career averages  http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/recordsstats / pdfs/PTIndividualRecords-3.pdf .... obviously in bowling, a top level woman could beat a top level man in any one head to head round... and possibly (much less likely) could win a 3-set match.... over time though their average will be ahead of the woman.
 
2013-10-15 11:52:09 AM  

weiserfireman: Theaetetus: dletter: It is more of an issue of the "bell curve" of the physical abilities between the sexes..... I mean, go look at almost any physical competition... elite men finish ahead/better than elite women.   Go look at any decently participating marathon... at least 10-20 or more, depending on the size of the field, men finish before the winning woman.

Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:
[www.marathonguide.com image 450x365]

If you were correct and this was due to innate physical differences and the "'bell curve' of the physical abilities between the sexes", then those bell curves has drastically shifted over a mere 50 years: the women from this generation are significantly faster and stronger than the most elite male athletes from the last generation? If so, then we've just seen the greatest leap in evolution in that time period. That strains credulity.

That is graph of one athletic event, the Marathon, which isn't so much about strength and speed, an area where women can beat men.


He was the one who brought it up. I was merely refuting his point while making a larger point about performance gains over one single generation showing that what we believe to be "inherent and innate differences due to evolution" are clearly not.

Marathon times are more driven by lifetime running miles than anything else.     The elite women marathoners are starting to run long distance at a younger and younger age.      It isn't even very controversial to say that in endurance events, within 50 years women may be faster than men.


That is controversial - I suggest you fight with dletter about it. In particular, 50 years ago, people would never have conceived of that possibility... which brings me to:

That isn't the same as saying in 50 years, women will be the dominate players in the NBA and NFL.

Agreed, but the cause is likely not "inherent differences due to evolution". Rather, it may be the fact that NBA and NFL salaries and training budgets (as well as the farm systems, all the way down to peewee football) are significantly bigger than their WNBA and... LFL? counterparts?
 
2013-10-15 11:53:50 AM  

dletter: Because elite men will always run faster than elite women.


I've already shown this to be false with the chart above. The elite women now could easily beat the fastest men from one generation ago. You can keep pounding the table with your shrill statements all you want, but I've got actual data.
 
2013-10-15 11:56:34 AM  

Theaetetus: Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:


If men didn't improve in the same timeframe, you'd maybe have a point.   HUMANS improved in training endurance, etc over the past 50 years.... which means, men and women both improve... and yes, then the best 2013 woman has a better time than the best 1947 man..... but training procedures, nutrition, etc, play a part, and count across the board with both sexes.

It isn't like we don't have the arguments WITHIN the sexes across era's..... Babe Ruth hit 57 HRs and trained by eating hot dogs for the most part and hit somewhat subpar pitching (because relief pitching wasn't really something teams "did" regularly back then).

So, yes, the assumption is, we are discussing "2013 Elite" men vs. "2013 Elite" women.... it shouldn't really have to have been said that we are not comparing "1947 Elite" men vs. "2013 Elite" women, but, there you are.
 
2013-10-15 12:00:41 PM  

dletter: Because elite men will always run faster than elite women. Go show me a weightlifting record where women beat men... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weight l ifting


This is easy.
At the 1924 Olympics, middleweight Carlo Galimberti snatched 95 kg and jerked (heh) 127.5 kg to take gold. The current women's middleweight records are 135 kg and 163 kg, respectively.
 
2013-10-15 12:00:54 PM  
Slow day on the sports tab, huh?
 
2013-10-15 12:02:30 PM  

Theaetetus: weiserfireman: Theaetetus: dletter: It is more of an issue of the "bell curve" of the physical abilities between the sexes..... I mean, go look at almost any physical competition... elite men finish ahead/better than elite women.   Go look at any decently participating marathon... at least 10-20 or more, depending on the size of the field, men finish before the winning woman.

Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:
[www.marathonguide.com image 450x365]

If you were correct and this was due to innate physical differences and the "'bell curve' of the physical abilities between the sexes", then those bell curves has drastically shifted over a mere 50 years: the women from this generation are significantly faster and stronger than the most elite male athletes from the last generation? If so, then we've just seen the greatest leap in evolution in that time period. That strains credulity.

That is graph of one athletic event, the Marathon, which isn't so much about strength and speed, an area where women can beat men.

He was the one who brought it up. I was merely refuting his point while making a larger point about performance gains over one single generation showing that what we believe to be "inherent and innate differences due to evolution" are clearly not.

Marathon times are more driven by lifetime running miles than anything else.     The elite women marathoners are starting to run long distance at a younger and younger age.      It isn't even very controversial to say that in endurance events, within 50 years women may be faster than men.

That is controversial - I suggest you fight with dletter about it. In particular, 50 years ago, people would never have conceived of that possibility... which brings me to:

That isn't the same as saying in 50 years, women will be the dominate players in the NBA and NFL.

Agreed, but the cause is likely not "inherent differences due to evolution". Rather, it may be the fact that NBA and NFL salaries and training budgets (as well as the farm systems, all the way down to peewee football) are significantly bigger than their WNBA and... LFL? counterparts?


Men are more athletic, that's just how it goes. If you really think they're even in strength, watch women powerlifters vs. men.

And there will never be a woman in the nfl except MAYBE kicker/punter. Men are just bigger, stronger and faster. It's physiology, despite what feminists claim. Brittany Griner would've gotten owned in the NBA and not just due to training. In MMA sparring, typically the women get destroyed by men, too, even if they are less talented.

Hell, high school and college teams regularly beat women olympic teams
 
2013-10-15 12:04:53 PM  

dletter: Theaetetus: Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:

If men didn't improve in the same timeframe, you'd maybe have a point.   HUMANS improved in training endurance, etc over the past 50 years.... which means, men and women both improve... and yes, then the best 2013 woman has a better time than the best 1947 man..... but training procedures, nutrition, etc, play a part, and count across the board with both sexes.

It isn't like we don't have the arguments WITHIN the sexes across era's..... Babe Ruth hit 57 HRs and trained by eating hot dogs for the most part and hit somewhat subpar pitching (because relief pitching wasn't really something teams "did" regularly back then).

So, yes, the assumption is, we are discussing "2013 Elite" men vs. "2013 Elite" women.... it shouldn't really have to have been said that we are not comparing "1947 Elite" men vs. "2013 Elite" women, but, there you are.


I'm comparing one generation and the following generation because you raised an evolutionary "bell curve" argument. You now admit that training and nutrition are the dominant factors. Glad you agree.

Yes, the 2013 men and 2013 women are clearly at different performance levels. Since we both agree that any inherent differences are minor, if not negligible, and that training and nutrition are the dominant factors, then it's false to say that women will never beat men, or that men will always be better than women... unless you're saying that men's training will always be better than women's training.
I'd agree, but I'd also point out that that has nothing to do with genetics, just society.
 
2013-10-15 12:05:16 PM  

Theaetetus: dletter: Because elite men will always run faster than elite women. Go show me a weightlifting record where women beat men... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weight l ifting

This is easy.
At the 1924 Olympics, middleweight Carlo Galimberti snatched 95 kg and jerked (heh) 127.5 kg to take gold. The current women's middleweight records are 135 kg and 163 kg, respectively.


You do know the training difference is huge over the past century, right? In 1924, olympic training was part time. It's full time now. The argument isn't trained female vs untrained male, it's trained female vs trained male.

If they're so even, why are men's records so much greater nowadays?
 
2013-10-15 12:05:28 PM  
also dresses are not an allowed uniform in the NFL so
 
2013-10-15 12:06:41 PM  

machoprogrammer: And there will never be a woman in the nfl except MAYBE kicker/punter. Men are just bigger, stronger and faster. It's physiology, despite what feminists claim.


I've already proven you false in this thread. Even dletter agrees that it's training and nutrition, not physiology.
 
2013-10-15 12:07:17 PM  

machoprogrammer: Theaetetus: dletter: Because elite men will always run faster than elite women. Go show me a weightlifting record where women beat men... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weight l ifting

This is easy.
At the 1924 Olympics, middleweight Carlo Galimberti snatched 95 kg and jerked (heh) 127.5 kg to take gold. The current women's middleweight records are 135 kg and 163 kg, respectively.

You do know the training difference is huge over the past century, right? In 1924, olympic training was part time. It's full time now. The argument isn't trained female vs untrained male, it's trained female vs trained male.

If they're so even, why are men's records so much greater nowadays?


Your premise is false.
 
2013-10-15 12:08:34 PM  

Theaetetus: dletter: Theaetetus: Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:

If men didn't improve in the same timeframe, you'd maybe have a point.   HUMANS improved in training endurance, etc over the past 50 years.... which means, men and women both improve... and yes, then the best 2013 woman has a better time than the best 1947 man..... but training procedures, nutrition, etc, play a part, and count across the board with both sexes.

It isn't like we don't have the arguments WITHIN the sexes across era's..... Babe Ruth hit 57 HRs and trained by eating hot dogs for the most part and hit somewhat subpar pitching (because relief pitching wasn't really something teams "did" regularly back then).

So, yes, the assumption is, we are discussing "2013 Elite" men vs. "2013 Elite" women.... it shouldn't really have to have been said that we are not comparing "1947 Elite" men vs. "2013 Elite" women, but, there you are.

I'm comparing one generation and the following generation because you raised an evolutionary "bell curve" argument. You now admit that training and nutrition are the dominant factors. Glad you agree.

Yes, the 2013 men and 2013 women are clearly at different performance levels. Since we both agree that any inherent differences are minor, if not negligible, and that training and nutrition are the dominant factors, then it's false to say that women will never beat men, or that men will always be better than women... unless you're saying that men's training will always be better than women's training.
I'd agree, but I'd also point out that that has nothing to do with genetics, just society.


Its physiological through evolution. You can't compare different generations. There's 120 lb men who outlift the strongest heavyweights of a century ago. The difference in training is why; as training gets better, men get better, too. Women will never be as strong as men. Hell, female bodybuilders are not even half the size of males. Males have way more testosterone and even when juiced to the gills, the juiced men are still twice the size
 
2013-10-15 12:10:02 PM  

Theaetetus: machoprogrammer: Theaetetus: dletter: Because elite men will always run faster than elite women. Go show me a weightlifting record where women beat men... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weight l ifting

This is easy.
At the 1924 Olympics, middleweight Carlo Galimberti snatched 95 kg and jerked (heh) 127.5 kg to take gold. The current women's middleweight records are 135 kg and 163 kg, respectively.

You do know the training difference is huge over the past century, right? In 1924, olympic training was part time. It's full time now. The argument isn't trained female vs untrained male, it's trained female vs trained male.

If they're so even, why are men's records so much greater nowadays?

Your premise is false.


You said men and women are equal athletic wise. So why are the men, whotrain as much as the women, hold more high records? It's physiological
 
2013-10-15 12:10:16 PM  

Theaetetus: Then why is there a WNBA?

Training, salary differences, etc.


That is total B.S.   If there was any woman who could play as an equal with Lebron James... you are telling me NBA teams wouldn't be trying to put her on their team?  "Salary differences" are because of interest in the sport.. that has zero to do with sex differences on a physical level.

Is the 2013 WNBA MVP better than the 450th best player in the NBA... and just because of being a different sex, she isn't given a chance at making the NBA squad?   I don't know, I guess we'd have to have some sort of athletic comparison competition between them.  My 99% certainty guess is the NBA would still beat her in most if not all measures of what makes one basketball player better than another, but, I won't say I know that for sure.  I will say that there is no woman, even if you gave her the "NBA-level" training regimine, etc, that could outplay the top 200 NBA players.  Again, we are talking "elite", not that "elite" women wouldn't beat 99.9999% of men in the world in whatever competition.... I am here to say they would.  I am saying, there are still .00001% of men (in their current era) they will never be able to do better than.
 
2013-10-15 12:15:20 PM  

Theaetetus: machoprogrammer: And there will never be a woman in the nfl except MAYBE kicker/punter. Men are just bigger, stronger and faster. It's physiology, despite what feminists claim.

I've already proven you false in this thread. Even dletter agrees that it's training and nutrition, not physiology.


No... I said it is training and nutrition PLUS physiology.... if you give the group of elite women the same exact training, nutrition, drugs, whatever that the elite men have...... the elite men win.   Your chart even proves that...... yes, the 2013 women caught up to the 1960 men.... the 2013 men though are way ahead of that though.

You are getting to troll level here though.    You still haven't shown where elite women, in the same era with the same access to training/health assets/knowledge, can consistently outperform men in almost any athletic endeavor.
 
2013-10-15 12:29:22 PM  

machoprogrammer: Its physiological through evolution. You can't compare different generations.


Bwaahahahahaha!
 
2013-10-15 12:36:52 PM  

Theaetetus: machoprogrammer: Its physiological through evolution. You can't compare different generations.

Bwaahahahahaha!


Physiological through millions of years of evolution is what I meant. You can't compare different generations due to training differences
 
2013-10-15 12:45:24 PM  

Theaetetus: dletter: Theaetetus: mediablitz: She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?

The guys who come in these threads and say that because Fox was born a man, she's going to be unbeatable by a woman?

I don't know that people were saying that.... the point was (at least in my mind).... an "elite level" man WOULD always beat any woman, because of the physical differences.   In this case, Fox isn't an "elite level" male-born MMA fighter, so, a very elite level woman would have a chance (as we've seen).

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, particularly because "elite level" is an ambiguous term that you seem to define post hoc in a way that supports your argument, rather than having an objective definition first. Fox was undefeated after many professional fights, until now. That seems to be pretty elite.

It is more of an issue of the "bell curve" of the physical abilities between the sexes..... I mean, go look at almost any physical competition... elite men finish ahead/better than elite women.   Go look at any decently participating marathon... at least 10-20 or more, depending on the size of the field, men finish before the winning woman.

Except that the winning woman now has times better than the world records of men from 50 years ago:
[www.marathonguide.com image 450x365]

If you were correct and this was due to innate physical differences and the "'bell curve' of the physical abilities between the sexes", then those bell curves has drastically shifted over a mere 50 years: the women from this generation are significantly faster and stronger than the most elite male athletes from the last generation? If so, then we've just seen the greatest leap in evolution in that time period. That strains credulity.


That you believe recent increases in pro athlete performances have anything to do with evolution strains credulity.

Unless "evolution(tm)" is the name of a new drug.
 
2013-10-15 12:55:56 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, the 2013 men and 2013 women are clearly at different performance levels. Since we both agree that any inherent differences are minor, if not negligible, and that training and nutrition are the dominant factors, then it's false to say that women will never beat men, or that men will always be better than women... unless you're saying that men's training will always be better than women's training.
I'd agree, but I'd also point out that that has nothing to do with genetics, just society.


No he is saying that with equal training, elite men will be stronger and faster than elite women. If you took 1947 man and 2013 woman and gave them the same training regimens, 1947 man would be stronger and faster than 2013 woman.

Theaetetus: When she was 17, yes. Be interesting to see now, after she's had another 15 years of training and practice. More importantly, as with the above chart, it would be interesting to compare her stats (serve speed, etc.) to the top male tennis player from the previous generation.


The guy that beat her also beat her sister the same day after playing a round of golf and having a few beers. In 1973 a 55 year old retired Bobby Riggs defeated Court, the worlds top female tennis player at the time, 6-2 and 6-1.
 
2013-10-15 01:09:20 PM  

rjakobi: lecavalier: Question: am I huge hypocrite asshole if I am totally for gay rights but remain prejudiced (and poke fun at) against transgender people?

Yes, but continue doing so anyway. There's a reason the transgendered are last when you refer them in the LGBT group.


Good to know.  Maybe one day I will become as enlightened as you.
 
2013-10-15 01:10:19 PM  
"Males have superior body frames than women as expressed in Sexual Dimorphism throughout the history of the animal kingdom including humans "
This is true except for all the times it's not.
 
2013-10-15 01:11:51 PM  

Kelwen: "Males have superior body frames than women as expressed in Sexual Dimorphism throughout the history of the animal kingdom including humans "
This is true except for all the times it's not.


In humans, males have a huge physiological advantage
 
2013-10-15 01:14:48 PM  
except it wasn't limited to just humans. It was a sweeping generalization of the entire animal kingdom
 
2013-10-15 01:36:48 PM  
Down to brass tacks.....

Human males vs. human females in the same exact time period, given the same abilities to train/knowledge to make their body in peak performance level for the competition at hand... the elite men will always finish ahead of/defeat the elite women.

If you want to argue that point... please come with examples of in-era examples where a woman beat all of the elite men, or beat a standing record set by a man.

Don't bring in other species.... don't bring in comparing different eras.... don't bring in non-athletic competitions.... don't bring in trollistic points.... bring the data that proves your point.
 
2013-10-15 01:45:16 PM  

machoprogrammer: Theaetetus: dletter: Theaetetus: mediablitz: She was dominated in the fight as well. Turns out a skilled fighter beats an unskilled fighter. Whoda thunk it?

Men are more athletic than women, that is just how it goes. Particularly in strength activities. At my gym, a very popular gym in my city, I've never seen a woman bunch more than 15 ...


I've seen women bunch their panties in a wad very very quickly and efficiently.
 
2013-10-15 02:05:29 PM  
The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade ... the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.
 
2013-10-15 02:17:21 PM  

The_Sponge: The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade ... the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.


There's a huge difference between gender and race...
 
2013-10-15 02:32:05 PM  

dletter: Human males vs. human females in the same exact time period, given the same abilities to train/knowledge to make their body in peak performance level for the competition at hand... the elite men will always finish ahead of/defeat the elite women.

If you want to argue that point... please come with examples of in-era examples where a woman beat all of the elite men, or beat a standing record set by a man.


Ski-jumping.

But, that example aside, I'm not arguing the point, because your premise is invalid. Women do not currently have equal opportunities for training.
 
2013-10-15 02:45:44 PM  

Theaetetus: Women do not currently have equal opportunities for training.


Sarah Fundamentals, starting power forward for the Cleveland Sandwich-Makers would totally be better than Lebron James if it wasn't for the patriarchy keeping the sisters down,
 
2013-10-15 02:47:28 PM  

Theaetetus: Women do not currently have equal opportunities for training.


Also, explain this
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jul/02/2-female-marines-fail-off ic er-combat-test/
 
2013-10-15 02:58:04 PM  

Theaetetus: I'm not arguing the point, because your premise is invalid. Women do not currently have equal opportunities for training.


Citation needed. This is a valid point if we were talking about averages but it only requires one to be the best; there's no way you can claim that not a single woman in the world has had similar opportunities as her male counterpart.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report