this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
227 points (82.9% liked)
Showerthoughts
29807 readers
697 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Male" soccer is not restricted to men. Both genders are allowed. There are only men because they outperform women.
edit: Although FIFA forbids women from access to the main World Cup. Also the statement above is true generally, but not everywhere.
The NFL isn't male only either. Not supporting anything but agreeing that some sports are segregated by performance
Even at lower levels of football women are typically only kickers.
Which is awesome and I hope we see one in the NFL one day! That said the reason for that is that kicker is the only position on the field that doesn’t require you be a genetic marvel. Most men and women that are born are not the size needed to play O-Line, most people that are that big are also not athletic enough(or didn’t have access to the tools to improve to that level).
I’d love to see a woman on the line or at qb or wide receiver. It’s just unlikely to happen before the sport is outlawed or I die
ok cool what about the op's thoughts?
He addresses them with that statement. There are plenty of women that are in similar weight classes as men but you don't see any in male sports.
Even though male sports does not have a gender requirement. This is essentially an indirect way of saying that there are biological differences between male and female that go beyond weight.
There are various differences you could point out. Males have lower body fat %, which means more muscle. Their bones are shaped differently and are more dense. Men tend to be more aggressive and competitive. Men tend to have stronger bones, joints, tendons, and ligaments.
Men have more red blood cells, their hearts are bigger so they can pump more blood, and greater lung volume relative to body mass. So even a male and women same weight and height the man will be able to circulate oxygen more quickly.
There are many more examples if you go do some reading.
One of the differences may not be huge by themselves. But when you take the differences above and combine them, it creates a situation where in almost all sports, men play virtually unopposed by women.
Look up the Serena Williams interview. She's undoubtedly the best female player in the world. She doesn't stand a chance against a the 203rd best tennis male player.
This difference even applies to areas like chess. The highest ranking a woman ever got was 6th in the world, Judith Pulgar. Amazing player, but out of the 2500 or so grandmasters in the world, 42 are women.
Some of these differences can be explained by women around the world not being encouraged to play chess, but that does not explain all.
There are large biological differences when you look at the population in a statistical sense. And when you look at the most extreme samples from the edge of the normal distribution.. that's where the best athletes / chess players are going to come from.
The chess one isnt quite right. There's been experiments where if a woman player didn't know her opponent was a man she would perform better. It's called stereotype threat phenomenon.
It also happens when a male player knowingly goes up against someone higher in the league than himself and he performs below his own standard average.
Basically people in general psyche themselves out of their best performance when going against someone they perceive to be better than them whether that's factual or not. Confidence and undermining confidence can change a whole lot about how a person does in any given game or task.
There's an effect on both sides.
Contrary to what people assume, aggressive chess is a good strategy.
Due to a lot of factors I don't really want to get into, most chess players think men are naturally better than women.
So a woman who thinks she's playing a man is immediately on the defense, and a man who thinks he's playing a woman starts out very aggressively.
Which means a man and woman of equal skill, the man will likely win.
It's called stereotype difference and it's not just chess related.
I don't know why people always pick chess because there's no physical difference while ignoring the mind games we even play on ourselves in those situations.
Just people completely ignorant of what they're talking about and grasping at straws to find something that agrees with them
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620924051
You think that accounts for the differences? 42 of 2500 grandmasters are women because all the women are scared and intimidated of the men?
Maybe this plays some small effect but I doubt it's statistically significant enough in this context
Like you said, it happens to men playing higher rated men. In order to go up in ranking, you need to play and beat progressively higher rated opponents.
By the very nature of being a high level player, that player would have had to go through that.
It's a phenomenon that's been observed across multiple sports, not just between men and women chess players. It's particularly poignant in men vs women's chess... because of people repeatedly telling women they are inherently worse than men. Like you are doing right now.
There's been multiple studies on this. So yes, I side with the data that stereotype threat phenomenon has a significant impact on women's performance in chess against men.
Show me. Link me a couple.
I don't think this effect can account for more than a small fraction of the difference. Let's look at the research. I couldn't find anything from a quick search but maybe I'm using wrong terms.
The bigger difference imo is the brain development due to hormones in the womb. Old TLC program had a whole section on this suggesting it's why STEM fields are generally male dominated. Turns out hormones that determine biological gender also very much effect the development of the brain, and the male chemicals tend to develop the spatial reasoning part of the brain faster/more thoroughly than those who get don't get the male chemicals and stay female. This average higher spatial reasoning capacity creates an advantage in tasks or objectives where complex visualizations are necessary, like visualizing chess moves in your head.
It's not some massive, overwhelming difference, but it's enough to tilt the table. Play out that average enough and you have 42 women out of 2500 chess grandmasters
TLC is name I have not heard on a long time. Did they really use the term "biological gender"?
Bro they had a lot of wild shit back in the day. I remember that term specifically because they couldn't use the word "sex" on the program and had to bend over backwards using every other possible phrase.
Chess? What percent of woman players are GMs and what percent of male players are GMs? Because it sounds like sampling bias.
Women make up roughly 15% of US Chess Federation members. They make up roughly 1.5% of grandmasters.
That's an order of magnitude difference.
Here's a podcast about a study
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/mens-chess-superiority-explained-08-12-29/
Normally I'd just link studies...
But I feel like if you're this opinionated about things we figured out long ago, maybe listening would help more than reading.
Because it wouldn't have taken much for you to Google this at some point and realize we've been studying this for decades, and maybe, just maybe, science is better than your assumptions.
There are a lot of factors in play, and you seem to think it's because of...
What exactly?
Like it seems like you're just arguing women are bad at chess?
I've read multiple papers on this topic. I'm a 2000 rated player and have tutored girls in chess. This is an interest of mine.
There is a very large gap in performance. The research overall implies a complex variety of factors. This includes what you mentioned, along with other inequities. It also includes the fact that women players are roughly 11 years younger on average and therefore haven't peaked yet, which will account for some.
But there is evidence that there is also an innate biological difference. Men score better on visuospatial intelligence tests when compared to women. Chess, especially at a high level, involves a lot of this type of thinking.
I'm not arguing that women are bad at chess. Humans are individuals and there are varying levels of players in both genders.
Just that if you look at the extremes (which the top chess players will be) you're going to see a higher level of males even if we fixed all of the inequities currently influencing the gender gap in chess.
We don't know if the 10x difference is 5% due to biology or 50% due to biology. But we know it's a non zero scalar
Essentially I used it as an example in the wider context of why we have women's leagues and men's league in sports.
also it's called football dammit :(
First England made football.
But they never set the rules, every English school had their own rules, so you went by "home teams rules".
The biggest difference was if you could.pick the ball up like in Rugby (the school). To clarify during scheduling, that became known as "rugby football".
It didn't make sense to call non hand football "football" so it became "soccer football".
Eventually they both dropped the redundant football. Then for some weird ass reason I still don't understand, England made soccer just football and then centuries later gets mad at anyone still using the name "soccer" that they invented for the sport.
To be fair, the English invented English, so they kinda called most things in that language what it's called...
The soccer/football argument is a little silly. It's been called football in the UK, and many parts of the world for the better part of a full century. Call it soccer if you want, many counties have their own translation for football, or they use a different word when they have their own version of football that they like.
No one is trying to make England call it soccer again...
But the places that use soccer are the places settled by the British when they still called it soccer.
So it doesn't make sense why the modern Brits who don't remember soccer are so mad when we call soccer football just soccer like we literally always have.
Not true. Some countries allow it on a national level, but many do not. I believe The Netherlands allows it, but only at lower competition levels.
I think FIFA forbids it entirely, but I'm not entirely sure.
You are right, it's not allowed in the FIFA World Cup. I didn't know.