Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

If you are going to talk about core element of zero sum game survival, then women definitely have every reason to not want any male appearing man in any space where the women might be in some state of undress without their express consent.

First, I'm impugning zero sum game survival. That is "social darwinism" and the very thing that makes racism unethical, because it is unethical to play on the zero sum game against other humans with any mechanism based on violence.

Humans, ethical ones, win the zero sum game together, on a volunteer basis. And if there is no volunteer, we lose together. And we see to it that if we won't win together, oand nobody volunteers, we die together.

 

[Toni]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

If you are going to talk about core element of zero sum game survival, then women definitely have every reason to not want any male appearing man in any space where the women might be in some state of undress without their express consent.

First, I'm impugning zero sum game survival. That is "social darwinism" and the very thing that makes racism unethical, because it is unethical to play on the zero sum game against other humans with any mechanism based on violence.

Humans, ethical ones, win the zero sum game together, on a volunteer basis. And if there is no volunteer, we lose together. And we see to it that if we won't win together, oand nobody volunteers, we die together.

Women, as a group, do not volunteer to allow male appearing strangers in women only spaces where the women are likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the women present to do so.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

If you are going to talk about core element of zero sum game survival, then women definitely have every reason to not want any male appearing man in any space where the women might be in some state of undress without their express consent.

First, I'm impugning zero sum game survival. That is "social darwinism" and the very thing that makes racism unethical, because it is unethical to play on the zero sum game against other humans with any mechanism based on violence.

Humans, ethical ones, win the zero sum game together, on a volunteer basis. And if there is no volunteer, we lose together. And we see to it that if we won't win together, oand nobody volunteers, we die together.

Women, as a group, do not volunteer to allow male appearing strangers in women only spaces where the women are likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the women present to do so.

And "white people", defined as a group not by their skin but by their racist hearts, did not allow black appearing folks in white only spaces while whites people were likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the white people to do so, at one point in time.

I haven't presented any situation where any female person would be required to accept a stranger with an exposed penis where they have not already been vetted as not having testicles, unless that female person is a man taking testosterone. Nope. The third option still hold there, too.

 

[Toni]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

Not everybody looks at someone who is a different skin tone or has different hair texture or face shape and thinks: more different than me than alike.

If your theory were universally correct, there would be no wars between similar looking groups. There would be no wars between say, Protestants and Catholics or between sects of Islam or between various native American tribes. The North and the South would not have fought each other and neither would have the British and the Revolutionaries. And so on since the dawn of time.

Wars and battles are fought for control, dominance and power. Everything else is pretext.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A completely casual guy, to whom nudity means nothing, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.

• Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.

More details are needed according to my stated methodology, and first off you are automatically proclaiming it a "guy". I'll treat with you starting at "person with a penis and no breasts".

Where is this locker room -- is it in the YMCA, or is it in a "women's" gym, or is it after a sports game, or is it after a college class, or is it at the local pool...
Context here matters. People can be reasonably expected to properly contextualize their fears and work through them when they have contextually inappropriate reactions.
Does she know who it is?

Do they have testicles?

You sure want to have a lot of details for something that occurs in a moment's time. There is no instant replay. No multiple camera vantage points. Just a prominent dangling bit that'll stick out in a women's locker room.

I want to make it clear, you keep using the word "judging". That implies bias, morals, etc... And you seem to want more details... details the women wouldn't have in their locker room. So why are you so special to warrant having these details... when the women won't have them? You are judging Toni over her hypothetical reaction, when you yourself are apparently in the same camp as her, in needing more details to have a better understanding of the situation.

 

[Toni]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

If you are going to talk about core element of zero sum game survival, then women definitely have every reason to not want any male appearing man in any space where the women might be in some state of undress without their express consent.

First, I'm impugning zero sum game survival. That is "social darwinism" and the very thing that makes racism unethical, because it is unethical to play on the zero sum game against other humans with any mechanism based on violence.

Humans, ethical ones, win the zero sum game together, on a volunteer basis. And if there is no volunteer, we lose together. And we see to it that if we won't win together, oand nobody volunteers, we die together.

Women, as a group, do not volunteer to allow male appearing strangers in women only spaces where the women are likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the women present to do so.

And "white people", defined as a group not by their skin but by their racist hearts, did not allow black appearing folks in white only spaces while whites people were likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the white people to do so, at one point in time.

I haven't presented any situation where any female person would be required to accept a stranger with an exposed penis where they have not already been vetted as not having testicles, unless that female person is a man taking testosterone.

White people absolutely DID sort people according to perception of their appearance OR with other evidence in the case of a white appearing person whose grandmother was black, for instance. Some still do. Some black people sort others into groups according to skin tone or hair texture, or both. So do other groups: It is extremely that lighter skinned people are seen as being 'superior' to darker skinned people. This is true among East Asian peoples, South Asian peoples, North African peoples.

 

[Jarhyn]

You sure want to have a lot of details for something that occurs in a moment's time

Yes, because the context of the moment determines reactions and what is appropriate. Someone is walking behind me in my own empty home late at night, I will run to the nearest weapon and use it on them until I am sure they will not get back up, unless in that time I recognize them as I come about.

Someone is walking behind me on a crowded sidewalk, and I think nothing of it. I probably don't notice them.

People knowing where they are does not happen "in a moment's time". It happens all the time everywhere, and is called "situational awareness".

The situation is different in the YMCA vs the locker room after the game is different from after a college class is different from a women's gym, mostly in terms of one's expectations for seeing strangers, and the expectations of the reason they are at the place and who they can expect to see.

The only one of these where a stranger, male or female, is expected to walk in and drop trow, is in a membership controlled facility, and if the membership controlled facility is doing their job right of meeting code for having a single locker room, and offering the contractual promise of "no betesticled males", then the context is such that it has already been vetted; and if they haven't done the due diligence of promising that kind of space then they have at the very least an ADA secondary shower which is offered to "whoever has use of it" whether penis or otherwise.

 

[Bomb#20]

How are you measuring "stronger" and "more physically developed"? No doubt you can back that claim up if you cherry pick the data, but otherwise?

There's a table of childhood track and field records here, listed by event, sex and age. http://age-records.125mb.com/

Matched by age, before puberty, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events.

Your source is 5 to 19 year olds. It includes boys who have gone through the majority of puberty.

The data they supply about 19 year olds doesn't corrupt the data they supply about 5 year olds. Looking at just the pre-puberty numbers, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events. Post-puberty, it becomes all the events.

There is a period of time where girls gain height more quickly than boys, so for about a year it would be true that girls have a slight advantage. But the variance is very small relative to the difference caused by puberty.

At which age are girls taller, 11? And to which event does being taller matter most, high-jump? The record high-jump for 11-year old boys is 5'9.25" and the record high-jump for 11-year old girls is 5'6.5". We see this pattern in event after event, at all ages, before puberty as well as after.

I think it's reasonable to say that prior to puberty, girls and boys have essentially the same physicality with respect to athletics.

People keep saying so, but what's the evidence for it?

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

If you are going to talk about core element of zero sum game survival, then women definitely have every reason to not want any male appearing man in any space where the women might be in some state of undress without their express consent.

First, I'm impugning zero sum game survival. That is "social darwinism" and the very thing that makes racism unethical, because it is unethical to play on the zero sum game against other humans with any mechanism based on violence.

Humans, ethical ones, win the zero sum game together, on a volunteer basis. And if there is no volunteer, we lose together. And we see to it that if we won't win together, oand nobody volunteers, we die together.

Women, as a group, do not volunteer to allow male appearing strangers in women only spaces where the women are likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the women present to do so.

And "white people", defined as a group not by their skin but by their racist hearts, did not allow black appearing folks in white only spaces while whites people were likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the white people to do so, at one point in time.

I haven't presented any situation where any female person would be required to accept a stranger with an exposed penis where they have not already been vetted as not having testicles, unless that female person is a man taking testosterone.

White people absolutely DID sort people according to perception of their appearance OR with other evidence in the case of a white appearing person whose grandmother was black, for instance. Some still do. Some black people sort others into groups according to skin tone or hair texture, or both. So do other groups: It is extremely that lighter skinned people are seen as being 'superior' to darker skinned people. This is true among East Asian peoples, South Asian peoples, North African peoples.

And your point? You are making my point for me, in that people sort each other by how they look, and there are mechanisms of the mind which transform how it manifests and what conclusions people draw on it, but people have problems with identifying self/other in stupid ways for stupid reasons mostly owing to the part that is conveniently ordered for picking up that belief structure.

You haven't made an argument that it isn't baked into what humans are.

For at least some of it, the ideas of universal love for all neighbors is a new one, designed to take hold in that part of the brain, or stand in challenge to it, a meme competing in it's own zero-sum-game on the battlefield of memes.

 

[Toni]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

If you are going to talk about core element of zero sum game survival, then women definitely have every reason to not want any male appearing man in any space where the women might be in some state of undress without their express consent.

First, I'm impugning zero sum game survival. That is "social darwinism" and the very thing that makes racism unethical, because it is unethical to play on the zero sum game against other humans with any mechanism based on violence.

Humans, ethical ones, win the zero sum game together, on a volunteer basis. And if there is no volunteer, we lose together. And we see to it that if we won't win together, oand nobody volunteers, we die together.

Women, as a group, do not volunteer to allow male appearing strangers in women only spaces where the women are likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the women present to do so.

And "white people", defined as a group not by their skin but by their racist hearts, did not allow black appearing folks in white only spaces while whites people were likely to be undressed without express permission on the part of the white people to do so, at one point in time.

I haven't presented any situation where any female person would be required to accept a stranger with an exposed penis where they have not already been vetted as not having testicles, unless that female person is a man taking testosterone.

White people absolutely DID sort people according to perception of their appearance OR with other evidence in the case of a white appearing person whose grandmother was black, for instance. Some still do. Some black people sort others into groups according to skin tone or hair texture, or both. So do other groups: It is extremely that lighter skinned people are seen as being 'superior' to darker skinned people. This is true among East Asian peoples, South Asian peoples, North African peoples.

And your point? You are making my point for me, in that people sort each other by how they look, and there are mechanisms of the mind which transform how it manifests and what conclusions people draw on it, but people have problems with identifying self/other in stupid ways for stupid reasons mostly owing to the part that is conveniently ordered for picking up that belief structure.

You haven't made an argument that it isn't baked into what humans are.

For at least some of it, the ideas of universal love for all neighbors is a new one, designed to take hold in that part of the brain, or stand in challenge to it, a meme competing in it's own zero-sum-game on the battlefield of memes.

No: I'm pointing out that people GO TO WAR with people who look just like them, speak the same language, have extremely similar religious beliefs, a common language, common culture. The reason soldiers wear uniforms is to distinguish them to their own side and from their own side. Otherwise, no one would know who to kill.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You sure want to have a lot of details for something that occurs in a moment's time

Yes, because the context of the moment determines reactions and what is appropriate.

I'm pretty certain we were talking about a women's locker room. A place where men are generally not common. You seem to be shifting the goal posts at the moment. Hopefully pragmatism will win out here.

Someone is walking behind me in my own empty home late at night, I will run to the nearest weapon and use it on them until I am sure they will not get back up, unless in that time I recognize them as I come about.

Someone is walking behind me on a crowded sidewalk, and I think nothing of it. I probably don't notice them.

People knowing where they are does not happen "in a moment's time". It happens all the time everywhere, and is called "situational awareness".

Yes, again, women's locker room, why are we wasting 1's and 0's on this detail?

The situation is different in the YMCA vs the locker room after the game is different from after a college class is different from a women's gym, mostly in terms of one's expectations for seeing strangers, and the expectations of the reason they are at the place and who they can expect to see.

The only one of these where a stranger, male or female, is expected to walk in and drop trow, is in a membership controlled facility, and if the membership controlled facility is doing their job right of meeting code for having a single locker room, and offering the contractual promise of "no betesticled males", then the context is such that it has already been vetted; and if they haven't done the due diligence of promising that kind of space then they have at the very least an ADA secondary shower which is offered to "whoever has use of it" whether penis or otherwise.

So you agree then that a woman would be correct in having an issue with seeing any person with a penis in the women's locker room, and it could only be mitigated by the gym vetting the person via the results of bloodwork and providing facilities to mitigate access for the person?

Why is this thread over 1000 posts long!?

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

I'm constantly amazed at how much of an incredible expert you are at all possible topics. I mean, a complete self-declared wizard of technology, and an unassailable expert at evolutionary processes, and the leading go-to guy for both biological function AND medicine! You are truly an inspiration to all of us mere mortals.

 

[Bomb#20]

You're wrong. In so many ways you're wrong. People who have been forcibly penetrated with objects against their will don't fear the objects, they fear the type of person who forcibly penetrated them. And in 99% of cases, that person is a male.

You're tarring all who share a characteristic with an evildoer.

If it's ok to keep men out it's also ok to keep blacks out.

You keep saying that as though it were a logical implication. It isn't. It's perfectly possible for it to be okay to keep men out but not okay to keep blacks out -- all it takes is for your parallel to break down in some way. For example, if ladies' rooms had been instituted by the matriarchy to keep the female rulers and their ingroup from having to rub elbows with the powerless men they oppress, that would make your parallel quite a bit better than it in fact is.

In both cases it's a decision based on a basically immutable characteristic that causes fear.

Nobody has addressed this.

People react to one another based on basically immutable characteristics all the time. The job goes to the taller or stronger or smarter applicant; the guy gets rejected for a date because the girl likes girls; the auditioner loses the part because the director thinks his voice is wrong for the role. We can object to the unfairness of such outcomes, but there are a lot of things we can object to, and we put all those considerations onto the scale when we make decisions. To say "If it's ok to keep men out it's also ok to keep blacks out." because "In both cases it's a decision based on a basically immutable characteristic that causes fear." is to single out that one consideration and define it as outweighing all others. You are effectively demanding that men using the ladies' room be exempted from cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Emily Lake]

A completely casual guy, to whom nudity means nothing, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.

• Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.

More details are needed according to my stated methodology, and first off you are automatically proclaiming it a "guy". I'll treat with you starting at "person with a penis and no breasts".

Where is this locker room -- is it in the YMCA, or is it in a "women's" gym, or is it after a sports game, or is it after a college class, or is it at the local pool...
Context here matters. People can be reasonably expected to properly contextualize their fears and work through them when they have contextually inappropriate reactions.
Does she know who it is?

Do they have testicles?

A psychopathic male who is intent on violently assaulting a woman in the women's locker room, walks into the women's locker room intent on walking into a shower stall and committing a heinous crime.

• Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.

A psychopathic woman who is intent on violently assaulting people...

Again, though, a lot depends on where she is.

If she's in a YMCA, I already provided that there should be an option that isn't the other.

If it's a normal women's fitness club, either this person no longer has testicles AND has passed a urinalysis for testosterone, so they are a regular member of the gym, OR they have already shot everyone from the front desk to the locker room, she has many other indicators as to what is going on.

Let's assume thought that she is, perhaps, a deaf person and doesn't hear the sounds of someone in the building forcing their way past the person at the front desk, forcing a door, traveling through the gym, and getting naked BEFORE attacking her...

I'm sorry, but your situation is not plausible.

There is going to be myriad things that warrant reasonable reaction (though not expected reaction) prior to that point.

If it is the YMCA and she attacks a female with a flat chest in automatic fight or flight because that person looks "mannish", she's just attacked someone based on knee-jerk prejudice, and if she runs... Well, that's a really fucking shitty thing to do to someone.

If she is in the YMCA and the person has a penis out, she would be fully encouraged (though not expected because that would be victim blaming) to fight or run, because I have already said that where there is mixed public access, there needs to be a third option which does not out trans people.

If it is after a sports game, either the psychopath is already someone she knows and is on her team, as an intact male psychopath, or is a complete stranger and she is not expecting to see them and then again, fully encouraged to fight or run.

JFC the cartwheels you will perform in order to support your position that women aren't allowed to take reasonable steps to protect themselves from harm are downright astonishing.

Also incredibly offensive, judgmental, and frankly very aggressively male in outlook. More male in outlook than most of the men posting in this thread.

I mean, seriously, you are so 100% male-centered and insulting that I am aghast.

 

[Emily Lake]

I haven't presented any situation where any female person would be required to accept a stranger with an exposed penis where they have not already been vetted as not having testicles

Well, as long as the great and all-knowing Jarhyn has decided that they meet Jarhyn's personal criteria for being there, then women don't get to have a say - what women want is irrelevant. Jarhyn knows best.

 

[Toni]

You sure want to have a lot of details for something that occurs in a moment's time

Yes, because the context of the moment determines reactions and what is appropriate.

I'm pretty certain we were talking about a women's locker room. A place where men are generally not common. You seem to be shifting the goal posts at the moment. Hopefully pragmatism will win out here.

Someone is walking behind me in my own empty home late at night, I will run to the nearest weapon and use it on them until I am sure they will not get back up, unless in that time I recognize them as I come about.

Someone is walking behind me on a crowded sidewalk, and I think nothing of it. I probably don't notice them.

People knowing where they are does not happen "in a moment's time". It happens all the time everywhere, and is called "situational awareness".

Yes, again, women's locker room, why are we wasting 1's and 0's on this detail?

The situation is different in the YMCA vs the locker room after the game is different from after a college class is different from a women's gym, mostly in terms of one's expectations for seeing strangers, and the expectations of the reason they are at the place and who they can expect to see.

The only one of these where a stranger, male or female, is expected to walk in and drop trow, is in a membership controlled facility, and if the membership controlled facility is doing their job right of meeting code for having a single locker room, and offering the contractual promise of "no betesticled males", then the context is such that it has already been vetted; and if they haven't done the due diligence of promising that kind of space then they have at the very least an ADA secondary shower which is offered to "whoever has use of it" whether penis or otherwise.

So you agree then that a woman would be correct in having an issue with seeing any person with a penis in the women's locker room, and it could only be mitigated by the gym vetting the person via the results of bloodwork and providing facilities to mitigate access for the person?

Why is this thread over 1000 posts long!?

For the same reason that muliple people suggested universal dressing rooms/showers with doors, used universally, has been ignored. I mean, almost everyone agrees thst would do the trick with some thinking it’s unnecessary and others expressing concern that unless it is universal and mandated, women will continue to lose out because their needs are considered too expensive (and trivial)

 

[Emily Lake]

Not everybody looks at someone who is a different skin tone or has different hair texture or face shape and thinks: more different than me than alike.

I feel like perhaps Jarhyn's own internal racism, and his struggle to overcome his racism, is leading him to make false assumptions about everyone else.

Ferinstance... Most females across the entire planet have a tendency to see other females as "more like me", regardless of race or ethnicity, or whether the have orange spines coming out of their backside. If they're identifiably female, they are generally "us" especially when it comes to intimate spaces and the shared experience of male dominance and abuse.

The fact that a woman is black takes a far back seat to the fact that she is a woman, and that holds true for most women. The fact that a person is obviously male is one of the first things that women recognize and process. All other differences between us are only relevant in situations were the realities of our sex are irrelevant.

 

[Emily Lake]

White people absolutely DID sort people according to perception of their appearance OR with other evidence in the case of a white appearing person whose grandmother was black, for instance. Some still do. Some black people sort others into groups according to skin tone or hair texture, or both. So do other groups: It is extremely that lighter skinned people are seen as being 'superior' to darker skinned people. This is true among East Asian peoples, South Asian peoples, North African peoples.

For a considerable portion of our history, pretty much since the end of nomadic times, having paler skin was an indication of high status. It was very strongly correlated with being in a position where you could survive without having to be out in the elements. Thus, even for cultures where a higher melanin content than Sweden is the norm... those with a relatively lighter skin tone were viewed as being more successful.

The entire concept of tanning for fashion has only been a thing since... what... the 70s I think? It's an extremely modern idea, and it's very much a response to an industrialized and commercialized society, where the "commoner" spends a large portion of their time working indoors, without access to the sun.

In prior eras, paleness was an indicator of leisure, now a tan is an indicator of leisure.

 

[Emily Lake]

Someone is walking behind me on a crowded sidewalk, and I think nothing of it. I probably don't notice them.

Here's yet another situation where you know nothing at all about women.

A stranger walking behind a woman on a crowded sidewalk is almost always taken note of. If they are female, we generally place them at a lower potential risk than we would a male.

Do you know why we do that? Can you hazard a guess as to why the average woman, in broad daylight, on a crowded sidewalk, would be inclined to consider a male walking closely behind her as a higher risk level than a woman walking closer behind her?

I'm genuinely curious to know what your thoughts are on this, Jarhyn.

 

[Emily Lake]

How are you measuring "stronger" and "more physically developed"? No doubt you can back that claim up if you cherry pick the data, but otherwise?

There's a table of childhood track and field records here, listed by event, sex and age. http://age-records.125mb.com/

Matched by age, before puberty, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events.

Your source is 5 to 19 year olds. It includes boys who have gone through the majority of puberty.

The data they supply about 19 year olds doesn't corrupt the data they supply about 5 year olds. Looking at just the pre-puberty numbers, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events. Post-puberty, it becomes all the events.

I did not make it far enough into the link to find the age-banded stuff, I only looked at the start, where it was all rolled together. My bad.

There is a period of time where girls gain height more quickly than boys, so for about a year it would be true that girls have a slight advantage. But the variance is very small relative to the difference caused by puberty.

At which age are girls taller, 11? And to which event does being taller matter most, high-jump? The record high-jump for 11-year old boys is 5'9.25" and the record high-jump for 11-year old girls is 5'6.5". We see this pattern in event after event, at all ages, before puberty as well as after.

I think it's reasonable to say that prior to puberty, girls and boys have essentially the same physicality with respect to athletics.

People keep saying so, but what's the evidence for it?

Moderate common sense and a reasonable willingness to make concessions for young kids where the competition level is relatively low, at least for me.

I could be wrong, but based on my own experience as a kid, as well as observations of kids, etc. The best records might still be set by boys, but it seems like the magnitude of the differences before puberty begins (lets say under age 9? 10?) are relatively small. Enough so that when you're talking a group sport, like little league, it seems perfectly reasonable to have those be mixed sex activities.

Once puberty begins, the magnitude of the differences start to grow, and at that point sex-specific sports makes more sense. Failure to separate by sex at that point begins to have the effect of excluding girls and women from sport.