> 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.
> the subject of “female safe spaces” was brought up as an argument against allowing people to transition
No, it was brought up as a counter to your claim that single-sex spaces have no value (“the ‘wrong’ bathroom… arbitrary bullshit” in your comment).
Nobody in response mentioned anything about transitioning or trans people at all.
You are welcome to make the case that the strength dimorphism shouldn’t be taken into account for individual scenarios, but the idea that it doesn’t really exist or is generally insignificant is frankly gaslighting and insulting to people born female.
The user who responded has made several transphobic posts, and this is entire discussion is inherently about trans issues.
That you and others would decide to attack my bad argument without attempting to make a statement about trans issues in itself is... well, something I can respect actually, I just find it difficult to believe, and also it is beside the point of the entire discussion thread.
> but the idea that it doesn’t really exist or is generally insignificant is frankly gaslighting and insulting to people born female.
...maybe. Worth considering. Anyway, I've conceded that I have made a bad argument, which is what you are claiming is all you care about in this instance.
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.