That'll take some explaining away.Indeed, it wasn't a flippant necro though given the new information that this supposed 'man' is in fact now pregnant. Am still waiting for an explanation of male pregnancy from the OP
Famous men who pretend to be women
- Thread starter oulton
- Start date
You realise that all the hormones in the world wouldnt get boobs like that.
Would need at least 1 year hormones to build up some tissue and then implants.
Not to mention hormone therapy like that would ruin her athletic ability
It's not even absolutely certain that humans have pheromones. The defining thing about pheromones is the effect they have on other members of the same species and in humans there's evidence of trends (e.g. a study in which men smelled human sweat showed a tendency for homosexual men to prefer sweat from men and for heterosexual men to prefer sweat from women) but in species for which pheromones are a settled issue the effect is far stronger and clearer. You could use a machine that's much more sensitive than a human nose and analyse the chemicals in scent from a person, but that wouldn't tell you what they mean and in any case it would be better to do a blood test and/or urine test.
Their chromosomes wouldn't matter anyway. Genotype is not phenotype. Genes are plans for things rather than the things and it's the things that matter. If someone has the defining characteristics of one sex, that's their sex. It wouldn't matter what their genes are.
A much fairer way of matching contestents would be on the relevant aspects of physiology. Sex and weight are a rough approximation that's usually mostly close enough to being fair enough...and I think that's not fair enough, especially now that people can have their sex changed. Developing a fair comparison of the genuinely and directly relevant factors would be far more complicated but I think it should be done.
There are two(*) sexes (physical). There are an infinite number of genders (social or tendency). Things would be clearer and fairer if the distinction was made, since mashing the two together greatly helps biological group identity ideologies. If sex and gender are treated as being the same thing, that vastly increases the number of things that are sexed (clothing, behaviour, hobbies, likes and dislikes, etc, etc) and thus vastly increases sexist stereotyping and pressure to conform to whatever is the dominant idea of how people of each sex should be. Which, of course, is of great use to the belief that a person is wholly defined by their sex, that their sex is their identity.
Dresses, for example, are gendered extremely feminine in this country at this time. But they're not sexed at all. A piece of clothing doesn't have a sex and unless it's enchanted with very powerful magic it doesn't change the sex of the person wearing it. Gender isn't sex. Also, since gender is usually purely social it usually isn't real. Dresses, for example, were ungendered in ancient Rome. Pretty much every Roman wore a dress most of the time regardless of their sex at least up until the late republican period when trousers became socially acceptable. The hemline of the dress was very strongly gendered, though.
When gender is real, it's a trend and not an absolute. Height, for example, is gendered. There's a tendency for men to be taller than women. That's a real thing, not just a social construct. But it's still not sexed - many women are taller than many men.
* There are people with characteristics of both sexes, though it's rare in humans. I suppose you could classify them as a third sex or even several more sexes depending on the details of their physiology, but I wouldn't.
That's the obvious answer, but in keeping with the sporting aspect I'll throw a possible answer in from the left field - myostatin. Maybe she has two copies of the relevant variation of the gene and thus has a far higher cutoff point for muscle growth. It's now proven to exist in humans - the first confirmed case was a few years ago but there's no reason to believe that was the first person with two copies of the relevant variation of the gene. The effect is huge. There are some startling comparison photos of whippets with and without two copies of the relevant variation of the gene (it was first studied in whippets, where it's less rare due to selective breeding for racing).
http://stuartisett.photoshelter.com/image/I0000bZPBPiDcCik
**** me that is some beast 0_o
Head-on views are even more striking in some ways because whippets with two copies of the gene are wide. You can see their shoulders standing well out from both sides of their head. With other whippets, you can hardly see their shoulders at all from the front because they're so lightly built.
In case anyone is interested: it wasn't deliberate selective breeding for this. Whippets with one copy of that variant of the gene tend to be slightly faster than whippets with no copies of that variant of the gene, so that was what was selectively bred for. Doing so increased how common that variant of the gene was in whippets, so it increased the chance of whippets with two copies of that variant of the gene. They're a bit slower because they're a lot heavier.
It occurs in cows too, which is getting a bit silly because cows are heavily muscled anyway.
There was an attempt to make a drug which caused the same effect because it would be very beneficial to people with medical problems that cause muscle wasting. It got as far as human trials but failed on safety grounds. The effects of the drug must have differed in some way from the effects of the genetic variation, but I don't know what the difference is or if anyone knows. A lot is understood about genetics, but a lot more isn't. The basic principle is simple - the body uses myostatin as a signal that enough muscle has been made, so less myostatin means more muscle will be made - but the devil is in the details.
Where did that come from? I can't tell if you're talking nonsense for a laugh or if you're intending to make a point of some kind. If you were intending to make a point, would you say what it is?
I'm absolutely certain humans have pheromones, my Alpha pheromones can spin any plate.
It's just a running joke on bodybuilding forums that black people seem to have an easier time gaining muscle and getting big than anyone else.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=b...2.69i57j0l5.3174j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Very interesting, cheers.
how unsurprising.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,474
Trick from the lizard people perhaps?
I was watching the Athletics diamond league over the weekend, the first two home in the below vid have always been a tad suspect imo, skip to 1:10 if you dont want to watch the full race.
Just look at how they both jog past all the women, shocking. Sub par male athletes running against top female athletes.
Just look at how they both jog past all the women, shocking. Sub par male athletes running against top female athletes.
Unlike the OP's Serena Williams claim this is a genuine issue with intersex athletes who have male testosterone levels getting to compete as women - caused controversy at the Olympics too with the first three places all being suspicious and so genuine women, including the British runner who was quite upset about it, being robbed of medals.
Someone born with a mix of both genitalia, male XY chromosomes and male testosterone levels can run a time akin to a good male club runner and win the female event at the olympics. This means events like these, unless things change, are just going to be dominated by intersex athletes which defeats the point of segregating the sexes in sport in the first place.
Whilst it is a bit of a meme, I think there's an element of truth in it that leads back to the days of slavery. Only the strongest of the strong tended to make the journey and thrive, so a larger proportion of the "black" population (or people or people of African descent) in the Americas tend to have a predisposition to more favourable genetic traits that give an athletic advantage.