Transgender athletes (and related stuff)

[kwackers]

We also need to dispense with some of our ides about masculine and feminine and just let people be people.

I've read most of your posts but I still don't understand what you actually want or think.

That some sports simply can't support both men and women competitors without losing the women isn't a function of social constructs but one of physiological differences.

What do you want to do about that?
> Ignore it and let them compete together even if it means women no longer appear on the start line of elite events? (The fastest woman over 100m would only rank about 10,000th overall)
> Keep segregation for some sports? (In which case I'm simply confused about what it is you're trying to say.)
> Something else.

We can argue about what the physiological differences actually are but that they exist is beyond doubt.
That some of those differences particularly when applied to physical effort can favour one or the other sex is also beyond doubt.

[thelawnet]

Did you actually read the article? Many of the women discussed as having hyperandrogenism were born biological women. Dutee Chand won a law suit and the right to compete in olympics on that basis.

That phrase 'biological women' is not self-defining.

Here's the findings from the Dutee Chand case:

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_ ... ATION_.pdf

" Dr van Anders pointed out that women with DSDs can be considered within the normal, healthy range and do not necessarily connote disorders that require clinical attention. The discussion then turned to the causes of high endogenous levels of testosterone, such as functioning testes, a tumour, or adrenal disorders. "

In other words a person who has an intersex condition such as complete androgen insensitivity (possesses testicles but does not respond to testosterone so will develop breasts and apparently female genitals, but has no fertility) is considered to be in the normal healthy female range, on the basis that they are not unhealthy.

As you can see here:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen- ... -syndrome/

"The penis doesn't form or is underdeveloped, which means the child's genitals may appear female, or between male and female. However, they don't have a womb or ovaries and have fully or partially undescended testicles."

Also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_ ... y_syndrome

"insensitivity to androgens is clinically significant only when it occurs in genetic males (i.e. individuals with a Y-chromosome, or more specifically, an SRY gene).[1] Clinical phenotypes in these individuals range from a normal male habitus with mild spermatogenic defect or reduced secondary terminal hair, to a full female habitus, despite the presence of a Y-chromosome.[1][5][6][7][8][9]"

In other words a person with AIS has XY chromosomes and testicles.

It continues in the Chand case above

"There is a class of female athletes who, by reason of DSDs, have high levels of endogenous testosterone. These athletes are female but have a medical or genetic condition that is believed to give them an athletic advantage. "

This requires unpicking - 'a class of female atheletes' - what does female mean here? And then it continues: 'by reason of DSDs'. A DSD is a disorder of sexual development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders ... evelopment

this refers to "congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical."

In other words they are talking about people who are legally female but who possess atypical anatomy or genetics. Dutee Chand does NOT have normal female biology, but rather a DSD.

If you read the ruling in full you can see that in fact there is no attempt to test whether or not Dutee Chand fits into a definition of female or not.

'The IAAF points to the fact that the Hyperandrogenism Regulations expressly and emphatically disavow the concept of “sex testing” and “gender verification”. According to the IAAF, the Hyperandrogenism Regulations expressly acknowledge the femaleness of the Athlete, not the reverse. '

"Once an athlete is legally recognised as female, the Panel considers that an athlete must be permitted to compete in the female category unless her naturally high androgen levels confer a significant performance advantage over other female competitors"

In other words, there was very specifically NO ruling on whether or not Dutee Chand is a biological female.

Instead the hyperandrogenism regulations as then implemented were an attempt to avoid ever having to rule on this, and simply divided people by testosterone levels.

It has been suggested that Chand has androgen insensitivity syndrome (and hence would not , though as per the above it was not even considered in the ruling (though it was mentioned that Indian doctors performed ultrasound, presumably to look for testicles). https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.c ... hand-case/ It is further mentioned in the Chand ruling that the question of 'androgen insensitivity' is a difficult one:

it is “easy” to determine complete insensitivity since the athlete will present no signs of virilisation at all. However, it is more difficult to determine partial androgen insensitivity. There is no specific test that can enable a precise quantification of the degree of partial insensitivity and exact grading is therefore “very difficult”.

Virilisation, assessed by an expert panel, is necessary to ascertain total or partial androgen insensitivity. There are difficulties in ascertaining a specific percentage or degrees of androgen resistance and Dr Bermon says that the benefit of the doubt is given to the athlete.

Dr Bermon, who has served as a member of the IAAF Medical and Anti-Doping Commission since 2006, has only seen one case where a female athlete was completely androgen insensitive.

In other words, while androgen insensitivity is common among athletes competing as female, it's mostly incomplete, and the 'assessment' seems to consist of looking at the athlete and assessing to what degree they look like a man, which in reality seems to result in the benefit of the doubt going to the athlete.

(and moreover in any case having XY chromosomes with complete AIS is still advantageous in comparison to XX females, as XY have bigger stature etc.)

If you want it made more clear, although the average testosterone produced by men and women is very different, as is the range, there is considerable overlap in the distribution for a population, if it is large.

forumtg.jpg
https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/1/1/14/2890811

The image is from a 2009 study, whereas the link is to a 2017 study.

Furthermore, it is not particularly useful in that it is not considering elite athletes (though you can see that the male mean is six standard deviations above the female at 18-24, and seven standard deviations above at 25-34, which is extremely far away). And, as noted in the Chand ruling above, the existence of males with very low levels of testosterone (which can be a response to the discontinuation of anabolic steroids, or a medical condition) is not the point, but rather we are looking at females with very high levels: " the probability of a healthy woman reaching 10 nmol/L is practically zero."

Here are the male and female ranges:



(see https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/S ... 413aa80a1f)

In other words the middle 50% of female athletes possess free testosterone roughly between 6 and 12 pmol/l, while the male range is 250-480 pmol/l.

For the individual female athletes




The very highest free testosterone reading was no higher than 50 pmol/l in most events.

However in the 800m, where Caster Semenya competes, this was 469.3 pmol/l.

This is a high male range of testosterone.

[Vorpal]

We also need to dispense with some of our ides about masculine and feminine and just let people be people.

I've read most of your posts but I still don't understand what you actually want or think.

That some sports simply can't support both men and women competitors without losing the women isn't a function of social constructs but one of physiological differences.

What do you want to do about that?
> Ignore it and let them compete together even if it means women no longer appear on the start line of elite events? (The fastest woman over 100m would only rank about 10,000th overall)
> Keep segregation for some sports? (In which case I'm simply confused about what it is you're trying to say.)
> Something else.

We can argue about what the physiological differences actually are but that they exist is beyond doubt.
That some of those differences particularly when applied to physical effort can favour one or the other sex is also beyond doubt.

The physiological differences mean almost nothing in sport. Women 'cannot compete' because they are not allowed to. Because we have a cultural imperative that says to be strong or fast is not feminine. Because our culture discourages girls from competing against boys at a very young age. 'throw like a girl' is entirely learned, and so are almost all of the differences in women's and men's 'performance' reinforced for generations. Women are *taught* differently, even when they do sport. Furthermore, if they only compete against each other, where is the encouragement to be any better? Right now, most women would not be comptetitive against men, but if all elite catagories were opened up to women, it would not be long before they were.

What do I want? Working toward end to sexism in sport. That means mixed gender competition.

In USA, I only played football on mixed gender teams. In the UK, I learned that I wasn't 'allowed' under FA rules. Which is absolute and utter ****.

I think that the vast majority of sports should allow mixed gender competition, especially at the elite level.

There is an argument that, at least in some sports, women should still have some women only competitions. The reasons for this include that women have been harrassed and discriminated against in sport, and may feel more comfortable, especially when starting, if they can play and/or compete with only women. I'm okay with that.

The other aspect is, women should have the opportunity to make the same money as men. This is only possible if either the sporting bodies implement rules that say so, or the women can compete with the men. Football may be an extreme case, but in the UK, few women can earn a living playing football, and those that can, get paid a tiny amount compared to the men. https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -and-space

Playing league football, 5 promotions down from women's premiership in the UK, we didn't even travel expenses paid, and sought our own sponsorship for kit and things. At least we had a decent club, with a good pitch, changing rooms, physio, etc. Some teams in our league played on park pitches. And some that were associated with clubs had to use secondary pitches because the main pitch was reserved for the 'first' (men's) team.

During WWI, the commercial potential in women's football began to achieve fruition, but the FA put an end to that by banning women's play at member clubs https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 50028.html

The physiological differences that are meaningful in playing football, are things like that the structure of women's legs means that they are somewhat more likely to suffere ACL injuries in football, than men are. This needs to be accomodated in training. But other things? Not so much.

I've posted several times on here about a book, Playing with the Boys: why separate is not equal in sports The book does a very good job of dispensing with the argument of physiological differences. They have already assembled all of the research, and included references. I strongly recommend reading it, if you want to understand why it doesn't make any difference. The reasons for male/female segregation in sport are cultural, not physiological.

[Vorpal]

The very highest free testosterone reading was no higher than 50 pmol/l in most events.

However in the 800m, where Caster Semenya competes, this was 469.3 pmol/l.

This is a high male range of testosterone.

You are correct about Chand, in that her case was not based solely upon her being biologically a woman, but on the fact that the testosterone limit is arbitrary.

Caster Semenya in known to be intersex. Dutee Chand is not. There is speculation about Chand, but I'm not aware that there is any evidence, other than her testostrone levels, that she is intersex.

But this all really beside the point, which to my mind is that segregation as a default is inappropriate. If men and women competed together, testosterone levels would be meaningless, as they should be.

[Ben@Forest]

But this all really beside the point, which to my mind is that segregation as a default is inappropriate. If men and women competed together, testosterone levels would be meaningless, as they should be.

I wouldn't really care if men and women did compete together but l think the vast majority of female athletes would. Caster Semanya is around 10% slower than contemporary male athletes so if her events were mixed she very likely would only be on the national rather than international stage. When l looked it up earlier it seems if all summer Olympic events had been mixed only tiny number of women in archery or dressage would ever have won medals.

Female athletes are just going to have to accept genuinely intersex athletes like Semanya but suggesting all female athletes should be competing against men seems perverse, and a real disincentive to be involved in sport.

[kwackers]

The physiological differences mean almost nothing in sport. Women 'cannot compete' because they are not allowed to. Because we have a cultural imperative that says to be strong or fast is not feminine. Because our culture discourages girls from competing against boys at a very young age. 'throw like a girl' is entirely learned, and so are almost all of the differences in women's and men's 'performance' reinforced for generations. Women are *taught* differently, even when they do sport. Furthermore, if they only compete against each other, where is the encouragement to be any better? Right now, most women would not be comptetitive against men, but if all elite catagories were opened up to women, it would not be long before they were.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I fundamentally disagree with this.

If for example all track events were mixed you'd see no women on the start line for a lot of the events, not only that but you'd never see any women there.
How exactly does that get women into sport?

Nature isn't stupid, those physiological differences exist for a reason - mainly so men can beat the crap out of each other in their pursuit of females. If they didn't need to be bigger and stronger they wouldn't have been.
Bigger and stronger is bigger and stronger.

If you want to argue about discrimination in sport then you should really argue that sports are chosen to deliberately flatter men.

I run with plenty of women who've ran competitively since their early teens and whilst they're bloody quick, they're still nowhere near as quick as the top men.
I find it hard to figure out exactly what you think has held them back. Certainly not commitment.
As for "only competing against each other" as a reason for not being as fast - seriously? Think about that statement, men only race against men - or more accurately, men race against the clock. Racing against others like you isn't a problem, unless you're the world champion you'll always have someone to race against.

Most non-elite races are gender indifferent. If women want to race against men they can, just pick the bloke in front and try to keep up.

[Cugel]

We also need to dispense with some of our ides about masculine and feminine and just let people be people.

I've read most of your posts but I still don't understand what you actually want or think.

That some sports simply can't support both men and women competitors without losing the women isn't a function of social constructs but one of physiological differences.

What do you want to do about that?
> Ignore it and let them compete together even if it means women no longer appear on the start line of elite events? (The fastest woman over 100m would only rank about 10,000th overall)
> Keep segregation for some sports? (In which case I'm simply confused about what it is you're trying to say.)
> Something else.

We can argue about what the physiological differences actually are but that they exist is beyond doubt.
That some of those differences particularly when applied to physical effort can favour one or the other sex is also beyond doubt.

The physiological differences mean almost nothing in sport. Women 'cannot compete' because they are not allowed to. Because we have a cultural imperative that says to be strong or fast is not feminine. Because our culture discourages girls from competing against boys at a very young age. 'throw like a girl' is entirely learned, and so are almost all of the differences in women's and men's 'performance' reinforced for generations. Women are *taught* differently, even when they do sport. Furthermore, if they only compete against each other, where is the encouragement to be any better? Right now, most women would not be comptetitive against men, but if all elite catagories were opened up to women, it would not be long before they were.

What do I want? Working toward end to sexism in sport. That means mixed gender competition.

In USA, I only played football on mixed gender teams. In the UK, I learned that I wasn't 'allowed' under FA rules. Which is absolute and utter ****.

I think that the vast majority of sports should allow mixed gender competition, especially at the elite level.

There is an argument that, at least in some sports, women should still have some women only competitions. The reasons for this include that women have been harrassed and discriminated against in sport, and may feel more comfortable, especially when starting, if they can play and/or compete with only women. I'm okay with that.

The other aspect is, women should have the opportunity to make the same money as men. This is only possible if either the sporting bodies implement rules that say so, or the women can compete with the men. Football may be an extreme case, but in the UK, few women can earn a living playing football, and those that can, get paid a tiny amount compared to the men. https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -and-space

Playing league football, 5 promotions down from women's premiership in the UK, we didn't even travel expenses paid, and sought our own sponsorship for kit and things. At least we had a decent club, with a good pitch, changing rooms, physio, etc. Some teams in our league played on park pitches. And some that were associated with clubs had to use secondary pitches because the main pitch was reserved for the 'first' (men's) team.

During WWI, the commercial potential in women's football began to achieve fruition, but the FA put an end to that by banning women's play at member clubs https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 50028.html

The physiological differences that are meaningful in playing football, are things like that the structure of women's legs means that they are somewhat more likely to suffere ACL injuries in football, than men are. This needs to be accomodated in training. But other things? Not so much.

I've posted several times on here about a book, Playing with the Boys: why separate is not equal in sports The book does a very good job of dispensing with the argument of physiological differences. They have already assembled all of the research, and included references. I strongly recommend reading it, if you want to understand why it doesn't make any difference. The reasons for male/female segregation in sport are cultural, not physiological.

Just so.

Consider also the logic of discriminating and separating people into exclusive competition groups based on supposed essential differences. Why confine the separations to gender or age? Why not do so based on other spurious biological classifications such as race, intelligence or aristocratic bloodline? In fact, such separations have occured and do still occur here and there. Many of us now find those separations ridiculous; and perhaps in future the gender-separators will come to see that such a separation is also ridiculous.

I'll repeat the extreme case.

If biological differences such as gender, age, skin colour, "race", or (non) membership of various other biologically defined groups should be employed to determine who can compete "fairly" against who, then we could go the whole hog and insist that only identical twins compete against each other, since they are the only ones who are equal enough biologically. This is very obviously daft. But if so, then the other separations based on biological features are equally as daft.

Cugel

[Vorpal]

Nowhere did I say that *all* women should compete against men. However, women who want to should be able to compete against men at elite levels. Do they *have* to? I don't know, but they they should certainly have the opportunity to.

Maybe the solution, for the time being is to have an elite mixed gender competition for most sports.

Secondly, what if women trained and learned just like men? what if they weren't told to do things differently to account for different physiology? What if they were treated no differently? What if, with cultural barriers removed, they were perfectly capable of competing with men? I have given some specific examples on this thread of women who not only competed, but some, like Jasmin Paris, who not only beat all the competitors, men and women alike, but beat the previous (men's) record by 12 hours (her time was 83 hours and a bit; thread linked above).

Go read the book Playing with the Boys: why separate is not equal in sports, and come back here with evidence other than 'without a doubt' that the physiological differences are significant.

[Pastychomper]

If biological differences such as gender, age, skin colour, "race", or (non) membership of various other biologically defined groups should be employed to determine who can compete "fairly" against who, then we could go the whole hog and insist that only identical twins compete against each other, since they are the only ones who are equal enough biologically. This is very obviously daft. But if so, then the other separations based on biological features are equally as daft.

Cugel

Would you apply the same standard to boxing and wrestling? As I understand it, most such sports are divided into weight classes - clearly a biologically-defined group - but it would be daft to insist that two wrestlers weigh exactly the same to be allowed to fight. Why not put them all in the same class and let a 50kg individual try her/his luck against a 120kg opponent?

[thelawnet]

The very highest free testosterone reading was no higher than 50 pmol/l in most events.

However in the 800m, where Caster Semenya competes, this was 469.3 pmol/l.

This is a high male range of testosterone.

You are correct about Chand, in that her case was not based solely upon her being biologically a woman, but on the fact that the testosterone limit is arbitrary.

It wasn't that Chand's case was not solely based on her being biologically a woman - it wasn't based on that AT ALL. The purpose of the regulations Chand was banned under was to get away from sex testing, because as I mentioned it was difficult to show that a given athlete, while possessing testicles, was not 'female'.

Hence though the ruling discusses that Indian doctors conducted ultrasound apparently under false pretences and makes at least a dozen references suspicions that Chand's biology is in some regards male, the point of the case was that literally wasn't a concern for the court in that they were only ruling about the testosterone limits.

Caster Semenya in known to be intersex. Dutee Chand is not. There is speculation about Chand, but I'm not aware that there is any evidence, other than her testostrone levels, that she is intersex.

Well there may be evidence, but it hasn't been released. I am not aware that any evidence about Semenya has been released either.

The Athlete
claims she was told that, because no nurses were available to conduct a blood test, she
would need to undergo an ultrasound examination instead. The Athlete says that she
was confused by the examination and did not understand why an ultrasound scan was
conducted in place of a blood test.

It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned that there are definite doubts
regarding the gender of an Athlete Ms. Dutee Chand. The athlete has won a Gold
Medal in 200m (Women) and as well as 4X400 Relay (Women), in the recently
concluded 17th Asian Junior Athletics Championships held at Chinese Taipei.
During the above mentioned championships, also, doubts were expressed by the
Asian Athletics Association regarding her gender issue.
As is aware [sic] that in the previous past also such cases of Female
Hperandrogenism [sic] have brought embarrassment to the fair name of sports
in India.

It continues that they conducted testing which would appear to include full gender verification

The Athlete stated that those tests included blood tests,
clinical tests by a gynaecologist, karyotyping, an MRI examination and a further
ultrasound examination

However they publicly said that Chand had been excluded because of high testosterone, and that gender verification is not permitted.

SAI has conducted this test following regulations set by international sport
organisations like the IAAF and the IOC governing eligibility of females with
hyperandrogenism. This test does not determine the athlete’s gender. IOC and
the IAAF have banned gender verification tests. We are simply trying to find out
if the athlete has excess androgen in her body

So the Indian authorities know very well about Chand's biology, ruled her ineligible to compete with women, but said this was (according to the international rules) because of high testosterone.

As the level here being discussed is >10 nmol/l, and Chand appears to be quite healthy, there does not seem to be any other explanation than that Chand possess testes.

But this all really beside the point, which to my mind is that segregation as a default is inappropriate. If men and women competed together, testosterone levels would be meaningless, as they should be.

What do you mean 'competed together'? If women and men competed in the same races, that might be somewhat amusing for pacing etc. but women could never ever win.

I note that Paula Radcliffe's 2003 marathon record (2:15:25) was at one point cancelled on the basis that it used male pacemakers. It was replaced with her 2005 version (2:17:42)

As such we already know pretty well what 'men and women competing together' would mean - the best woman finishing say 30th in the marathon, and nowhere at all in strength based sports such as weightlifting, where the power gap is 30%+.

If you want to destroy women's sport, eliminating female sporting role models for girls, creating higher levels of obesity (already higher among women than men) and consequent deaths due to the resultant diseases then that would be a very good path to follow.

If otoh you think that is useful to maintain two separate categories in order that women can compete against other people with the same biology (otherwise why not put engines in bicycles and legalise steroids), rather than against people who they have no chance against, then I'd suggest we do whatever we can to keep male and female as distinct categories based on biology.

Here's a graph showing male vs female strength. Nearly all men are stronger than nearly all women. You might as well run man vs horse races.

[thelawnet]

Nowhere did I say that *all* women should compete against men. However, women who want to should be able to compete against men at elite levels. Do they *have* to? I don't know, but they they should certainly have the opportunity to.

Maybe the solution, for the time being is to have an elite mixed gender competition for most sports.

Secondly, what if women trained and learned just like men? what if they weren't told to do things differently to account for different physiology? What if they were treated no differently? What if, with cultural barriers removed, they were perfectly capable of competing with men? I have given some specific examples on this thread of women who not only competed, but some, like Jasmin Paris, who not only beat all the competitors, men and women alike, but beat the previous (men's) record by 12 hours (her time was 83 hours and a bit; thread linked above).

Desperately clinging to the one category (financially non-lucrative and virtually untelevisable) where women and men are more equal (ultra-endurance) does not constitute an argument

Go read the book Playing with the Boys: why separate is not equal in sports, and come back here with evidence other than 'without a doubt' that the physiological differences are significant.

You linked to it already.

Here's a review

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/c ... =sportslaw

The arguments seem to be that women can cope with the same as men. E.g., rather than 3 set women and 5 set men's matches at Wimbledon, the women could do 5 sets as well.

This is completely true. However it isn't the point. The issue is that that's the status quo. If you change 3 sets to 5 sets then you need to create longer tournaments, more TV time, etc. And the stakeholders don't want that.

Increasing to 5 sets wouldn't make women able to serve as fast as men. No amount of training or resources is going to ever make a woman competitive against a male serve because men are physically stronger. The average male 1st serve is 26kph faster than the average 1st female serve.

The idea that male & female differences, the fact I could easily beat up my wife, say, but not the reverse, are somehow not grounded in fundamental biology, is ridiculous.

[kwackers]

Nowhere did I say that *all* women should compete against men. However, women who want to should be able to compete against men at elite levels. Do they *have* to? I don't know, but they they should certainly have the opportunity to.

And why not?
As long as they also have the ability to opt out and race in women only races then I've no problem with that - and if it turns out they're just as good then by all means remove the discrimination completely.

Go read the book Playing with the Boys: why separate is not equal in sports, and come back here with evidence other than 'without a doubt' that the physiological differences are significant.

It doesn't have to be significant. Most folk can get to within 90% of an elite without a problem, men or women.
The problem is that those last few percent make all the difference and that's all you need.
Whilst I'll admit I haven't read the book it sounds as though it's based on presumption and extrapolation rather than actual facts, since the only 'fact' you can take is that men are bigger and heavier - and unless you assume that mass includes weaker muscle then stronger too.
(I'm assuming at this point the book doesn't claim that women are only smaller because we socially engineer them to be so).

Like I said there are at least 10,000 men between the men's and women's record for 100m and that only takes us from 9.5 to 10.5 with numbers continuing to rise exponentially.
Which incidentally is a record set over 30 years ago.

From what you say that's a puzzle, are we to believe women 30 years ago were better athletes? I'd have thought all the social conditions you mention holding them back would have meant they were worse...

[thelawnet]

Like I said there are at least 10,000 men between the men's and women's record for 100m and that only takes us from 9.5 to 10.5 with numbers continuing to rise exponentially.
Which incidentally is a record set over 30 years ago.

AIR the 30 yo record was set by a presumed (and now deceased) doper, Flo Jo. And women respond better to steroids than men (which makes sense, as they have less to start with). So the gap is actually even bigger than that....

[Ben@Forest]

Go read the book Playing with the Boys: why separate is not equal in sports, and come back here with evidence other than 'without a doubt' that the physiological differences are significant.

But that can be applied at any level or experience to males as well as females. I played 5 a-side football in a social fashion. It was all self-funded, the training was miminal, there was no physio or professional aftercare for injuries. We could easily have been beaten by a group of better funded, better trained and fitter female players

BUT, if we'd had more time, money and dedication fewer female teams would have beaten us. Even then a team of talented Brazilian lads from a favela with no facilities at all - not even a pitch - would have beaten us or the better female team.

[Vorpal]

Go read the book Playing with the Boys: why separate is not equal in sports, and come back here with evidence other than 'without a doubt' that the physiological differences are significant.

Whilst I'll admit I haven't read the book it sounds as though it's based on presumption and extrapolation rather than actual facts, since the only 'fact' you can take is that men are bigger and heavier - and unless you assume that mass includes weaker muscle then stronger too.

Actually the book is well researched and includes extensive scientific references.

How much bigger are men than women, actually? And how much of the heavier is because men are encouraged to develop their muscles, engage in manual labour, play football and rugby, while women are discouraged from doing such things?