Support NeoGAF

[Mr Cola]

But how? It's not like they would have biologically evolved in the past 300 years, and golf skill doesn't get passed down from mother to daughter.

I think hes just trying to say that if we can all accept that in some sports and areas of society women face disadvantages that most men do not, advantages of access, role models, financial stability, incentivisation and encouragement (Of course others aswell that i cant think of) then we can accept that if these were addressed over a large enough period of time then womens sports would improve, I dont think there is anything controversial in that. To what end, I have no idea nor does anyone else tbh, its certainly not going to go backwards.

 

[Calamari41]

The shitty part about this is even then you are doing a disservice to those women. In this case you would bump them up to the "men's" category (if they were taller, stronger, heavier etc.). But where they would have been atop the women's category, they are now likely just average in the men's category therefore taking away those women who would excel at their sports from women's sports. No more Serena Williams for example, it would ruin her career.

Exactly. The Williams sisters, Annika Sorenstam, Misty May-Treanor. Four of the most famous athletes in the world. If they'd had to compete on equal footing against men from the very beginning, they would probably not even have had careers.

Now ask what happens to the women behind them.

 

[Trojita]

1. This isn't even a point I'm trying to make, but biological traits can and are passed down over time, especially 300 years. You are aware the average height, weight, age, etc... of humans has changed measurably over that time, right?

2. Sociology plays a gigantic factor in sports. If you grow up seeing women compete and are pushed to achieve in a sport with no regard to your gender, you are going to be better. The mental side of things is immeasurably important in sports.

Height has changed 95%+ because of nutrition. You should see how height has changed in East Asia within the last century when proper nutrition was introduced.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Exactly. The Williams sisters, Annika Sorenstam, Misty May-Treanor. Four of the most famous athletes in the world. If they'd had to compete on equal footing against men from the very beginning, they would probably not even have had careers.

Now ask what happens to the women behind them.

Yup

IN Boxing thats why groups of men are broken up by weight class right? To include a wider array of fighters?

We should strive to uphold excellence at all forms of anatomy. Its a recognition that nature doesnt allow us all to be born on equal footing but we serve equality anyways

 

[Mr Cola]

Yup

IN Boxing thats why groups of men are broken up by weight class right? To include a wider array of fighters?

We should strive to uphold excellence at all forms of anatomy. Its a recognition that nature doesnt allow us all to be born on equal footing but we serve equality anyways

It also helps that weight classes introduce very different styles of fighting

 

[D1renegade]

The race results need an asterisk or something.

 

[Calamari41]

Yup

IN Boxing thats why groups of men are broken up by weight class right? To include a wider array of fighters?

We should strive to uphold excellence at all forms of anatomy. Its a recognition that nature doesnt allow us all to be born on equal footing but we serve equality anyways

The boxing analogy is an excellent one.

 

[Kinyou]

1. This isn't even a point I'm trying to make, but biological traits can and are passed down over time, especially 300 years. You are aware the average height, weight, age, etc... of humans has changed measurably over that time, right?

Except for height, none of these things are passed on genetically. Increased weight or higher age is far more related to social progress.

 

[WaterAstro]

Rooney to become a woman so he can win a FIFA World Cup.

 

[Goodlife]

As long as her hormone levels are within normal female ranges I see no problem with it. If it was really such a big deal you'd think she be blowing out the competition instead of getting a bronze.

 

[Malvolio]

I've no problem with her competing and winning. Good for her.

However, there is a transitioning woman in my area that is on the active roster for both a men's and women's roller derby team. Not exactly sure how that's permissible.

 

[Saucy_XL]

1. This isn't even a point I'm trying to make, but biological traits can and are passed down over time, especially 300 years. You are aware the average height, weight, age, etc... of humans has changed measurably over that time, right?

2. Sociology plays a gigantic factor in sports. If you grow up seeing women compete and are pushed to achieve in a sport with no regard to your gender, you are going to be better. The mental side of things is immeasurably important in sports.



And I would argue that having the option to go up against whoever you wanted to in your chosen sport would help make you better.

--

I think some people in here don't play sports or just do not understand how incredibly important it is to play against higher levels of competition. No one is made better by playing a game on easy-mode. If Annika kept competing against men I guarantee she would place higher over time.

Yes humans changed drastically due to modern advances in fertilizers and crop engineering so that humans were getting enough calories to grow to their potential heights.

There is no appreciable change in a genetic pool over 300 years though. You are completely mistaken on this concept. But I would say that more accessbile to females -> more female competitors -> higher chances of having the highest skilled + strongest females involved in golf. Nothing to due with with evolution though.

 

[infinitys_7th]

I don't know who that is, and if you don't think that women would be able to compete alongside men more equally if they had been doing so for centuries... then I have no clue what to tell you.

That's not how evolution works, at least not in the short term like centuries or even a millenia. That argument sounds a little bit like Lamarckian inheritance (i.e. use and disuse inheritance):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

 

[Justified]

As long as her hormone levels are within normal female ranges I see no problem with it. If it was really such a big deal you'd think she be blowing out the competition instead of getting a bronze.

Its to my understanding hormonal level isnt the only factor in gender identification

 

[QuantumZebra]

Height has changed 95%+ because of nutrition. You should see how height has changed in East Asia within the last century when proper nutrition was introduced.

Naturally.

Also - I'm not 100% up to date on my biology, but I am fairly sure that changes you make to your body during your life can be passed down to your kids (I.E. if you are highly obese when you have kids, they are to some degree susceptible to it, and vice versa for muscle mass and health). I may be wrong here so please correct me if so. It could very well be a nature vs. nurture scenario.

My entire point is that, if you went back to the 1700s and founded a women's sports leagues that were just as popular as men's (totally hypothetical here) - you would assuredly see a more biologically/mentally superior level of competition from women's sports across the board (not just vs. men). I feel like that is almost common sense in a way.

That's not how evolution works, at least not in the short term like centuries or even a millenia. That argument sounds a little bit like Lamarckian inheritance (i.e. use and disuse inheritance):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

Thank you! That's what I was referring to.

 

[Nickle]

1. This isn't even a point I'm trying to make, but biological traits can and are passed down over time, especially 300 years. You are aware the average height, weight, age, etc... of humans has changed measurably over that time, right?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that skill is passed down through birth. A woman might have a body that is built to be potentially amazing at golf, but she will pass down that body to her daughter regardless of whether she ends up being a golfer or a janitor.

2. Sociology plays a gigantic factor in sports. If you grow up seeing women compete and are pushed to achieve in a sport with no regard to your gender, you are going to be better. The mental side of things is immeasurably important in sports.

I think hes just trying to say that if we can all accept that in some sports and areas of society women face disadvantages that most men do not, advantages of access, role models, financial stability, incentivisation and encouragement (Of course others aswell that i cant think of) then we can accept that if these were addressed over a large enough period of time then womens sports would improve, I dont think there is anything controversial in that. To what end, I have no idea nor does anyone else tbh, its certainly not going to go backwards.

I agree that allowing more women to play sports would produce many more high level female athletes, I just don't think that they would be able to compete with professional male athletes in most sports.

 

[Mr Cola]

With regards to MMA an issue is not just hormones but bone structure, hand size, things of that nature no? I remember an interview with Rousey a few years ago where she talked about these things and she did mention hand and bone structure as impediments.

 

[Beerman462]

Nice subtle insult there, it's a shame you're not even reading what I said thoroughly.
---

I'm beginning to think my posts are being wildly misinterpreted, or I don't have enough time to explain myself between trying to get some work done.

It is very simple:

If women were allowed to compete alongside men since the 1700s in Golf, for instance, it is extremely logical to say that the overall level of women's competitiveness in Golf would be higher, and that women would rank better against men they competed against in the current day and age.

I don't know how to explain myself better than that.

I've read all of your posts and the responses and it's just all over the place. The crux of this issue is that men inherently pound for pound outperform women in all physical activity. Sports, weights, and especially fighting. Can a woman beat a man yes. As you keep saying 90% of the time you would bet on the man, but the golf story you posted had the best woman golfer tied for 73rd out of 113 in a second tier tournament. She's the best and getting beat by a vast majority of the men in a second tier tournament.

Your thought that women would be doing better if they competed against men this whole time is ludicrous. It's not as if modern women golfers would be direct descedents of the previous generation of golfers. Unless your suggesting some kind of women golfing empire that is passing their superior golf genetics down the line. All golfers equally benefit from the skill sets and experience of the previous generations men and women. These skills are passed through knowledge not genetics.

 

[j0hnnix]

The male/female sports distinction ought to be dissolved anyway.

I would pay to see an NFL player play against a woman, I'm sure everything would go just fine.

😂
This is seriously happening. I'd love to see it happen.

 

[Trojita]

The biggest advantage if women were competing in sports at the same level as men is if they were starting to compete later in a vacuum without any of the cumulative knowledge, especially from coaches, on the sport. This of course isn't true because male coaches are involved in women's sports and knowledge gets passed around.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I agree that allowing more women to play sports would produce many more high level female athletes, I just don't think that they would be able to compete with professional male athletes in most sports.

Yes humans changed drastically due to modern advances in fertilizers and crop engineering so that humans were getting enough calories to grow to their potential heights.

There is no appreciable change in a genetic pool over 300 years though. You are completely mistaken on this concept. But I would say that more accessbile to females -> more female competitors -> higher chances of having the highest skilled + strongest females involved in golf. Nothing to due with with evolution though.

That is my entire point.

I really did not want to bring biology/evolution too heavily into it, but that ship sailed.

Also some posters decided to react to my thoughts/opinions instead of helping further discussion on them, which didn't help.

Your thought that women would be doing better if they competed against men this whole time is ludicrous. It's not as if modern women golfers would be direct descedents of the previous generation of golfers. Unless your suggesting some kind of women golfing empire that is passing their superior golf genetics down the line. All golfers equally benefit from the skill sets and experience of the previous generations men and women. These skills are passed through knowledge not genetics.

I just used golf as an example - please just toss out the singular sport aspect.

I'm talking about levels of competition and sociology.

If the culture of women's athletics had been more cultivated since this country was founded, we would see a far higher level of skill exhibited. I cannot fathom how that would be something absurd to think.

 

[KHlover]

😂
This is seriously happening. I'd love to see it happen.

German Women's National Soccer team doesn't play against male youth divisions anymore because they kept getting creamed. Create inter-gender competitions on a higher level and betting offices all over the world would need to shut down because they can't foot the payouts.

 

[Mr Cola]

I agree that allowing more women to play sports would produce many more high level female athletes, I just don't think that they would be able to compete with professional male athletes in most sports.

I think I cant really speak on it much because I really dont know the science, and also given that we dont live in that society yet I have no idea how much improvement would be made, but enough people tell me that the innate physical and hormonal differences exist that I would have to say that at the very top where we are talking born males who have that plus the additional genetics that are required to be the top of any given physical activity would likely stay there.

Where on the spectrum the top women would perform I have no idea, it would be incredibly interesting to see a female phenomenon bridge the gap, and what that would mean for women in general or the gender balance. One thing that I am curious about in these discussion is how we all here talk about women and men and the top level of sports and none of us could likely ever reach that level, I will never be faster than the fastest woman, I imagine given all the training and advantages ill never be faster than the fastest woman, or perhaps even stronger, so when it comes to generalising I dont like to give the impression that "Oh yeah im a man if i put my mind to it I could totally be the best at whatever the best women are". These people, men and women, are so far above me in skill and genetic traits that, frankly, talking about them as "Men/Women" in regards to their prowess always rubs me slightly the wrong way, they are almost in another category of people that are super human.

 

[WaterAstro]

Which sports have hard rules that woman can't play in the main sports league?

I know there was one case where a woman, Manon Rhéaume, played in a couple of official NHL games.

 

[Hazmat]

Naturally.

Also - I'm not 100% up to date on my biology, but I am fairly sure that changes you make to your body during your life can be passed down to your kids (I.E. if you are highly obese when you have kids, they are to some degree susceptible to it, and vice versa for muscle mass and health). I may be wrong here so please correct me if so. It could very well be a nature vs. nurture scenario.

My entire point is that, if you went back to the 1700s and founded a women's sports leagues that were just as popular as men's (totally hypothetical here) - you would assuredly see a more biologically/mentally superior level of competition from women's sports across the board (not just vs. men). I feel like that is almost common sense in a way.




Thank you! That's what I was referring to.

Are you saying that you think exercising makes your DNA stronger? Your genetic traits are why they are, and nothing you can do can change how they get passed to your offspring.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Are you saying that you think exercising makes your DNA stronger? Your genetic traits are why they are, and nothing you can do can change how they get passed to your offspring.

And my theory that people aren't reading my posts is confirmed.

That is not what I said at all. Please re-read. I was referring to Lamarckism, as someone else pointed out, and I made a point to say that I was not positive how it affected traits passed down.

 

[Kinokou]

But gender isn't the same thing as sex, or so I'm led to believe.

I thought I picked the right one?

But to to remove any doubts: a person who has a F in their passport should get to compete with other people who has an F in their passport from the day they get the F in the passport and a person who has a M in their passport should get to compete with other people who has an M in their passport from the day they get the M in the passport.

Now how this will apply to countries offering a third option outside of F or M I do not know.

 

[Justified]

Which sports have hard rules that woman can't play in the main sports league?

I know there was one case where a woman, Manon Rhéaume, played in a couple of official NHL games.

I dont think any sports though (that I can think of), but multi-million dollar business are going to take the top-tier that they can get (whatever the gender)

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Isn't this kind of competition only going to benefit transwomen? I feel like transmen competing at a high level of competition will get beat pretty consistently. Time will tell I guess. This whole situation is a tough one.

 

[Hazmat]

And my theory that people aren't reading my posts is confirmed.

That is not what I said at all. Please re-read.

You said that you think being obese when you have kids makes your kids more susceptible to obesity and are unsure if that's nature or nurture. You also seem to think that the increases in height and longevity over the past centuries are due to evolution and not nutrition. You clearly lack understanding of some basic biological concepts.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Naturally.

Also - I'm not 100% up to date on my biology, but I am fairly sure that changes you make to your body during your life can be passed down to your kids (I.E. if you are highly obese when you have kids, they are to some degree susceptible to it, and vice versa for muscle mass and health). I may be wrong here so please correct me if so. It could very well be a nature vs. nurture scenario.

My entire point is that, if you went back to the 1700s and founded a women's sports leagues that were just as popular as men's (totally hypothetical here) - you would assuredly see a more biologically/mentally superior level of competition from women's sports across the board (not just vs. men). I feel like that is almost common sense in a way.




Thank you! That's what I was referring to.

But Lamarckian inheritance isn't real. That is not how traits are passed down.

That's why I posted the link. As someone below says, Lamarckian inheritance would say giraffes have a long neck because they kept stretching for leaves rather than because longer necks proved beneficial for a niche application over time.

 

[Trojita]

The chance for parental imprinting is so low. The only time I've seen it studied to be a possibility is in the Överkalix Study

The study found that it was possible for a smoking father to affect the BMI of a resultant son, not a daughter. Paternal Grandfathers food availability would affect Grandsons while a Paternal Grandmother would affect a Granddaughter.

This is ignoring the complete lottery wheel nature of DNA and Chromosomes.

The estimation of percentage of human genes subject to parental imprinting is approximately one to two percent, currently parental imprinting has been identified in fewer than 100 distinct named genes.

 

[Kinyou]

And my theory that people aren't reading my posts is confirmed.

That is not what I said at all. Please re-read. I was referring to Lamarckism, as someone else pointed out, and I made a point to say that I was not positive how it affected traits passed down.

Lamarckism is widely acknowledged as incorrect. The basic example is that Giraffe's have long necks because they spend their whole life stretching for high leafs. Nowadays we know better. While environment can guide natural selection into a direction, the mutations happen by chance.

 

[Apathy]

Which sports have hard rules that woman can't play in the main sports league?

I know there was one case where a woman, Manon Rhéaume, played in a couple of official NHL games.

The NHL might not, but the Italian Winter Sports Federation ruled that women could not play in the men's league over there which stopped Wickenheiser from even getting her start in that league.On the bright side, the Finnish Hockey Federation ruled that women could play in men's league unanimously and it's why she got her first play in a men's league there.

 

[KHlover]

I think I cant really speak on it much because I really dont know the science, and also given that we dont live in that society yet I have no idea how much improvement would be made, but enough people tell me that the innate physical and hormonal differences exist that I would have to say that at the very top where we are talking born males who have that plus the additional genetics that are required to be the top of any given physical activity would likely stay there.

Where on the spectrum the top women would perform I have no idea, it would be incredibly interesting to see a female phenomenon bridge the gap, and what that would mean for women in general or the gender balance. One thing that I am curious about in these discussion is how we all here talk about women and men and the top level of sports and none of us could likely ever reach that level, I will never be faster than the fastest woman, I imagine given all the training and advantages ill never be faster than the fastest woman, or perhaps even stronger, so when it comes to generalising I dont like to give the impression that "Oh yeah im a man if i put my mind to it I could totally be the best at whatever the best women are". These people, men and women, are so far above me in skill and genetic traits that, frankly, talking about them as "Men/Women" in regards to their prowess always rubs me slightly the wrong way, they are almost in another category of people that are super human.

You don't even need to go to a high level of competition to see this. In the last few years of school (so basically ages 14 to 17-18) we had to perform ~ 20% better than the girls in physical activities like running or jumping to get the same grade, all the way down to the barely passing grades.

(Germany here)

 

[Mr Cola]

You don't even need to go to a high level of competition to see this. In the last few years of school (so basically ages 14 to 17-18) we had to perform ~ 20% better than the girls in physical activities like running or jumping to get the same grade, all the way down to the barely passing grades.

(Germany here)

I dont really have much experience, went to an all boys school

 

[QuantumZebra]

Lamarckism is widely acknowledged as incorrect. The basic example is that Giraffe's have long necks because they spend their whole life stretching for high leafs. Nowadays we know better.

Which is, yet again, why I said I was unsure if it affected traits being passed down.

And which is also why, yet again, I said I did not want to wade into the evolutionary aspect - I was talking about sociology + level of competition.

Some posters are just determined to make this all about biology, somehow.

You said that you think being obese when you have kids makes your kids more susceptible to obesity and are unsure if that's nature or nurture. You also seem to think that the increases in height and longevity over the past centuries are due to evolution and not nutrition. You clearly lack understanding of some basic biological concepts.

You clearly lack reading comprehension. I just said that A) I was unsure if certain traits could be passed down if they occurred within an individuals life (sorry I'm not a bio major). B) I'm not even trying to discuss biology. My argument and point in these posts is referring to levels of competition and sociology, for the 100th time.

 

[Calamari41]

I agree that allowing more women to play sports would produce many more high level female athletes, I just don't think that they would be able to compete with professional male athletes in most sports.

An elimination of the gender segregated sports would absolutely not produce more high level female athletes than the current arrangement, though. It would produce far, far, far fewer.

Take high school golf, for example. Right now most schools have a male varsity, male JV, female varsity, and female JV team. Let's eliminate the gender barriers, but even go so far as to keep the number of teams the same. Rather than having 20 male golfers and 20 female golfers playing for your high school, you would most likely see all four teams dominated by males. It would be speculation to state the exact number of females in this new arrangement, but you can bet it will be less than 20.

I was on the male JV golf team in high school, and we played with the girls all the time (think a golf version of a scrimmage). We dominated even the female varsity team every time, and we weren't taking it seriously while they were fighting like their lives depended on it. This is from the age of, what, 13? What 13 year old girl is going to go on to become a professional golfer if they get crushed and obliterated when trying out for the 4th string team in high school?

Maybe a lifetime of competing directly against boys/men would produce better female athletes, but there would be significantly fewer of them.

 

[Beerman462]

I just used golf as an example - please just toss out the singular sport aspect.

I'm talking about levels of competition and sociology.

If the culture of women's athletics had been more cultivated since this country was founded, we would see a far higher level of skill exhibited. I cannot fathom how that would be something absurd to think.

So how far back in time do you think we would have to go to see a change in modern sports performance. What you are suggesting is that if we let men and women compete directly in sports that this would some how manifest itself physically in modern women, because as I have already pointed out sports are evolving through knowledge techniques and in most cases technology.

With the sports analogy I'm sticking to golf, because if you take the woman in the story you linked. She is the best woman golfer, yet nowhere near the best man. So logically the only thing seperating them is physical differences, because they have access to all the same knowledge and technology.

How long would it take if we integrated men and womens sports today for that genetic divide to decrease through evolution in any meaningful way?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

And my theory that people aren't reading my posts is confirmed.

That is not what I said at all. Please re-read. I was referring to Lamarckism, as someone else pointed out, and I made a point to say that I was not positive how it affected traits passed down.

You know that Lamarckism has been more or less completely written off by the scientific community since Darwin wrote his book, right? You know, back in 1859?

 

[Octavianus]

Girls who spent a portion of their life developing as boys. The entire reason we have sex separation in sports is to diminish inherent biological advantages in developing as one or the other. Allowing trans girls to compete with girls who have developed as girls their whole life is unfair. This violates the reason the sexes were separated to begin with. This is not like bathrooms or locker rooms or changing rooms or whatever where it doesn't matter who you used to be or how you developed. Young girls can also have opportunities riding on how well they perform so to take away fair competition is hurting them.

And yet she came in third place so it seems like that 'inherent biological advantage' she has isn't all that it's cracked up to be.


This is exactly like the bathroom issue. You're trying to exclude her from something for completely irrelevant reasons when she's exactly where she's supposed to be.

 

[ApharmdX]

This thread will look so quaint in a few short years. I hope.

The only way it looks quaint is if we get some kind of scientific solution, something like gene therapy that enables a "more complete" transition. As the fluidity of gender becomes widely accepted in society, these issues will grow more pronounced, not less.

 

[Hazmat]

Which is, yet again, why I said I was unsure if it affected traits being passed down.

And which is also why, yet again, I said I did not want to wade into the evolutionary aspect - I was talking about sociology + level of competition.

Some posters are just determined to make this all about biology, somehow.



You clearly lack reading comprehension. I just said that A) I was unsure if certain traits could be passed down if they occurred within an individuals life (sorry I'm not a bio major). B) I'm not even trying to discuss biology.

If you didn't want to discuss biology you shouldn't be bringing up biological theories that have been discredited for nearly a century. I'm not a biology major either, but I paid attention in the ninth grade.

 

[norm9]

This is exactly like the bathroom issue. You're trying to exclude her from something for completely irrelevant reasons when she's exactly where she's supposed to be.

This is far from the bathroom issue. The only similarity is there is a transgender person involved.

 

[QuantumZebra]

How long would it take if we integrated men and womens sports today for that genetic divide to decrease through evolution in any meaningful way?

I think I'm gonna cry, lol.

I did not and still am not trying to address genetic aspects. I'm talking about the culture of athletics and sociology affecting how women's sports are perceived, how women are trained, how women are raised to compete, and how it raises the level of competition.

You know that Lamarckism has been more or less completely written off by the scientific community since Darwin wrote his book, right? You know, back in 1859?

I'm an engineer, not a biologist. I was speaking off a vague recollection and made it very clear that I was unsure if I was correct, and also asked to be corrected if so. Apparently that was not enough.

If you didn't want to discuss biology you shouldn't be bringing up biological theories that have been discredited for nearly a century. I'm not a biology major either, but I paid attention in the ninth grade.

I didn't. Which is why I asked to be corrected if I was wrong, and also said that I did not even want to discuss the biological aspect - it was brought up for me. I said that in my posts that you quoted, but apparently did not bother to fully read.

 

[Kinyou]

This is exactly like the bathroom issue. You're trying to exclude her from something for completely irrelevant reasons when she's exactly where she's supposed to be.

I don't think it's quite that simple. There is an inherent performance gap between sexes, there's no changing that. What you can do is to determine where exactly that gap is coming from and if perhaps hormone therapy is already sufficient to level the playing field again.

 

[Trojita]

And yet she came in third place so it seems like that 'inherent biological advantage' she has isn't all that it's cracked up to be.


This is exactly like the bathroom issue. You're trying to exclude her from something for completely irrelevant reasons when she's exactly where she's supposed to be.

You have no reason to claim this. This person would have likely done worse in a male race. A more talented individual that was born a male transitioned to female could have placed first due to an inherent advantage.

 

[dragonelite]

Are you saying that you think exercising makes your DNA stronger? Your genetic traits are why they are, and nothing you can do can change how they get passed to your offspring.

You have something called epigenetics. If DNA is your hardware, epigenetic is the software
or operating system running the hardware. It tells which genes in your dna are expressed
and which are turned off.

If i'm not mistaken they found some evidences in north east europe that epigenetic traits
can be passed onto your children.

I probably butchered it.

 

[Trojita]

You have something called epigenetics. If DNA is your hardware, epigenetic is the software
or operating system running the hardware. It tells which genes in your dna are expressed
and which are turned off.

If i'm not mistaken they found some evidences in north east europe that epigenetic traits
can be passed onto your children.

I probably butchered it.

You can just refer to my post above.

 

[Octavianus]

I don't think it's quite that simple. There is an inherent performance gap between sexes, there's no changing that. What you can do is to determine where exactly that gap is coming from and if perhaps hormone therapy is already sufficient to level the playing field again.

It's exactly that simple.
Sports are segregated by sexes. She's a girl, ergo she should compete against girls.

There's no issue here other than some people being unable to take the L.