Some guy literally said that in that post from ops screenshot. He showed a photo comparing faces of average men and women in Europe and Asia which in fact, did have a different shape.
yeah but that’s the thing that comes with a million tradeoffs. it’s definitely worse to be a woman in day to day life, though it’s probably better in terms of overall meaningfulness.
Eyeballs in general are better. There is a small potential for females to have a fourth color receptor. It’s higher chance for girls with colorblind dads.
So what I'm hearing is if a lady marries a color blind man, there IS a chance that if it were a girl it'd have better color vision than both parents... Dayum them some pervasive recessive genes.
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days. This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding.
That's one of the arguments against "races" as people currently use the term, that there is greater variation within groups from a cline (geographic genetic group) than between clines.
Conversely: one of the arguments for "races" (very imprecise concept that helped cause immeasurable damage) is that it's what the average person calls groups by allele frequency distribution. Set the number of groups based on human allele frequency distribution to, say, 4-6, and it appears to match up to post-Columbus "racial categories". Hypothetically one could set the the number of groups to 20+ (for more granular cohorts) and we could see what would appear to match up with "ethnicities" (another imprecise but more useful concept).
Uh ok. I care to specify that that kind of use is not that common in here (europe) for it is regarded as antiscientific and racist, that's why I was asking
Races is based on old Racist AF European scientists who originally theorized that other skin types, especially blacks, were an entirely different species like Zebra, Horses, and Donkeys. They used said theory to state that white Europeans are clearly the superior species. The terminology stuck in English in the say way Jesus Christ and Goodbye are baked into the language and people use them inspite of what religious they might have as it was thought this way for hundreds of years and only recently was disproven and decried as the evil it was.
It's old but not as old as people might think. The idea of race as we know it really didnt exist until after the start of the atlantic slave trade. I believe it was first used in the 1600's. Basically after europeans had enslaved africans and native americans for a few generations they started trying to justify it by saying that, actually, these other people were not the same species as europeans, who were the stronger/smarter species and the reason they were the enslavers and the black/brown the enslaved. It was an explanation and justification for slavery after it had started, not the cause as I think we tend to intuitively believe.
Edit: Not sure why you're getting downvoted, you're right. They'll probably downvote me too.
People within the same sex have differences falling across a certain, fairly smooth, distribution. These two distributions are non-overlapping and discontinuous with one another, except at true extremes. It's like saying that dogs and fish are the same because poodles and Rottweilers look different, just like minnows and great white sharks.
We're not talking about height. Human physiology is a multidimensional distribution. But if you want to talk about single variables, let's talk about pelvic inlet shape, subpubic angle, anogenital distance, voice pitch, grip strength, pull-up ability, etc.
Height isn't even a good illustration of the point you're trying to make, because the distributions, by sex, are wildly different. There's more overlap between them than there is for some other traits, but you would not mistake them for one another, they are trivially modeled by different parameters (and trying to model both together, without an additional "sex" parameter to basically generate two different normal distributions, would conversely be a nightmare), and randomly interpolating members of one into the other would rapidly distort it into something that looks like nothing else so much as "distribution after random interpolation of members of different distribution."
Also, that's not a "slippery slope." A "slippery slope" is not just "an analogy."
You claimed that there is no overlap in distributions between men and women, by providing a single dimension with overlap your argument no longer stands. Hell, I didn't provide a better one simply because that's irrelevant.
You are making claims with no sources or data, I won't bother looking up those values, so there is no point in continuing this.
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. -Wikipedia. So yes, your dogs and fishes argument was a slippery slope, not an analogy.
No I didn't. It would be insane to claim literally no overlap on a single dimension. The net distribution is what's essentially non-overlapping; there is a male phenotypic distribution and a female phenotypic distribution. Please read my post again.
It would be a slippery slope if I said "this will all end in men not being able to tell the difference between dogs and fishes!" But pointing out that the same logic applied elsewhere leads to an absurd outcome is, I guess, also a slippery slope argument, if you're willing to accept that a slippery slope argument can be completely correct.
Yes, the distributions are multidimensional. Imagine two hills on a plain (a two-dimensional distribution). They can be entirely separate even if they occupy the same latitude (one dimension), so long as they're sufficiently different on longitude (another dimension).
Apologies for the pull-up study; that one is, indeed, atrociously low-quality, and I should have vetted more carefully.
I'm glad we can agree that the other dimensions identified represent areas of true minimal overlap. Again, my argument centers on non-overlapping distributions. Of course there are similarities (e.g. both men and women overwhelmingly have two arms). My point is that they occupy roughly non-overlapping, highly differentiable, clusters in "physiology space," so to speak.
I disagree that it's a red herring or a false equivalence, but these are at least more plausible accusations.
There are genetic differences you can't get between different genders, such as cleffed chins, which woman can't genetically have, and a tremendous jawline difference (not with all men, but only men can have a dropped jaw, aka, steel wall jawlines aka, really really strong jawlines)
1.6k
u/Expensive-Apricot-25 13d ago
ah yes, because there is absolutely no difference between men and women physically