this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
44 points (100.0% liked)

WomensStuff

644 readers
428 users here now

Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.

Rules…

  1. Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women's community is a good fit for them.
  2. Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
  3. Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
  4. No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend Feminism@beehaw.org for that, but here is an escape from it.
  5. New accounts or users with few comments may have their posts removed to prevent spam and bad-faith participation.

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
LadyButterfly@lemmy.world
CheeseToastie@lazysoci.al
foxglove@lazysoci.al
LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone
dandelion@piefed.blahaj.zone
44
The Stronger Sex? (nextbigideaclub.com)
submitted 1 month ago by ZDL@lazysoci.al to c/womensstuff@piefed.blahaj.zone
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Women are "the weaker sex". If you're living in a male-dominated world that just coincidentally happens to define "strength" by things that men happen to be good at.

But it turns out there's quite a few important ways in which women are the physically stronger sex…

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So... I just had a very interesting conversation with my son, who was VERY upset that he couldn't have something from the garage. My husband was exhausted from work today and just didn't have it in him to rummage around for this thing my kid wanted. He wanted to yell and create trouble until he got his way. I tried to explain to him that if he figured out how and when to ask (like ask nicely, tomorrow when my husband wasn't tired) he was more likely to get the answer he wanted - and this idea (of not strong arming his way into a resolution) was completely bonkers to him. And it occurred to me that I have been conditioned to get what I want by working a situation/people and my son has been conditioned to push his way to what he wants. And maybe strength isn't just physical.

Anywho... This article was timely for me. 😃

[–] LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago

That's a really interesting point thanks

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Hmm, transphobic as it assumes women=people with certain biological traits and features, thus equating sex and gender, reinforcing the binaries, but interesting none-the-less.

Edit: clarified what we mean

[–] Nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

while i agree that women doesnt always equate to cis women obviously, the article would be really messy if it constantly had to specify what people exactly it was talking about. it was pretty clear that it was about the subjects born sex rather than women in general

we can save using the word transphobic for things that it really matters imo, this isnt a problem unless made to be a problem

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It was both a warning for those who were clicking on it, and the clicking a link about women, to us at least assumes it includes all women, not just some. Either the poster or the article should put a note up top explaining who it is about as we were clicking on it hoping to be including and pretty dissapointed when we were not, and yes it is transphobic, even if not against trans women as it assumes all people with certain biological features or traits are women too.

There's just no way it isn't transphobic, even if unintentional.

[–] Nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

fair point, ig specifically in this community this doesnt make much sense to post. the article doesnt really cover trans women at all, but doesnt much of it apply anyway? if you consider trans women on hrt i imagine it does, but im not super knowledgeable on the athletic affects it has

i dont mean to argue, just speaking my mind btw^^

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There’s just no way it isn’t transphobic, even if unintentional.

how would you have worded things differently to avoid this?

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The Whole Article (which is what we meant)?

We would have written it to be less binary and not used terms like women or female and just explained traits etc that gave advantages, explaining it with the understanding of modern science but in an approachable way.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

that's not much of an explanation. I don't feel like you're obligated to, but also, if you assert something as true, you probably should be able to explain it.

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Look, if you want us to rewrite the whole article we will. But you'll have to wait.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I would be interested to see how that works.

I love my transfolk friends and relatives. This is a transinclusive place. not trying to undermine that in any way. but I do want to understand things better if I can.

thank you.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago

Eh, at the start just put a note "for reasons of brevity we are referring solely to cisgender people"

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't think there is a good way to discuss the differences between women and men in a short article without generalizing. Most people are cis, and we are exceptions. I don't personally have an issue with the way this article makes its points.

I can accept that we are exceptional.

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The article is bad science.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

that is of more concern yes

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right and it is in part bad science because it is transphobic.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it doesn't mention trans people at all. I think you're reaching a bit.

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No, that's our point. Article is about women and doesn't mention us, and assumes everyone with certain biological features/traits is a woman.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Unless a researcher is specifically studying trans women, they won't have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions about trans women.

The article mentions research papers. The author is writing based on science, not just vibes. Every study will include sampling. They can't look at every woman, so they have to pick a subset to represent the whole. A sample needs to be large enough to make statistically significant conclusions. The one or two trans women who might be included in the sample will not be enough to draw conclusions about trans women as a group. Unless a study is about trans women specifically, it can't draw a conclusion about us.

Also keep in mind this is a one or so page summary of an entire book. The author may discuss trans women, I don't know I haven't read it. But those details would be unlikely to make it into a summary as condensed as the one we read.

I don't think its reasonable to call this bad science, and the author transphobic from the information in front of us.

[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We do not believe we ever called the author transphobic, just the article.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

does that minor difference in wording invalidate my points?

[–] MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Exactly this. I'm trans and I don't think this article is transphobic. Cis women are going to talk about cis bodies in womens' spaces, and just as the topic of trans bodies will likewise come up in the same spaces, that should be encouraged.

This type of thing can certainly be dysphoria-inducing for some trans women, and I think that's something we just need to self-regulate so everyone feels included and the original topic doesn't get hijacked. There certainly are times and places to vent about biology articles that center cis women, and I think the best place for that are in specifically trans spaces.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yes but also certain traits of bio sex are achievable for trans people, so it's also hard to say which parts of the article are strictly applicable to bio women. So while I don't think the author really had trans people in mind, some aspects there are probably not strictly for bio women.

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ahh, the classic "if we redefine a word to not mean what everyone knows it means, we can put a clickbait title on it, and act as if it makes sense"

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don't you think that they raise a good point about our perception of what "strong" means? It is totally clickbait, but I think that in the context of talking about the issue with defining men as the stronger sex it makes sense to use that title and show that the common perspective is not the only valid one.

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We're animals, it's obvious what strong means: who would win in a fight...

Does it mean that being the stronger sex means much in our society? Not at all, but it's a biologically obvious fact that in most species males are bigger & stronger than females.

And if you want to make the point that females have different strenghts go for it. Just don't try to redefine something that everyone understands means something else already.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Strong is a word, made up like all words, and has multiple meanings like most words.

If someone said "that person is so strong" you couldn't say without context if they mean that that person is physically strong or mentally strong. That sentence can apply to a person fighting cancer just as much as it can apply to a person fighting in the ring.

To me when someone says that a person is strong it does not immediately imply physical strength, so I don't think you are right about your position.

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It can have many meanings, in this context however the meaning is clear for everyone. This article is just clickbait for the sake of it. It's like Jordan Peterson in his "debates" "what do you mean by ....... ?"

You can indeed start a semantic discussion about every word, as language is very complex. But in some contexts, like "the stronger sex", everyone knows what it means. And i don't see any value in redefining it, rather than just being informative and saying "but strength of this type isn't everything, this is where the "weaker" sex excels".

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I just don't agree with you on the fact that "the stronger sex" is so cut and clear. But I understand your point.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Get ready for a wave of men complaining about the title 🤣 it is totally a clickbait but I don't think it's dishonest because it's not that it completely ignores the meaning of the word, rather it shows a new way to look at it.

[–] MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

This is a really cool summary of the research! It is easy to assume that women are physically weaker, but it's important to remember that there are a number of types of strength, though unfortunately some seem to be valued more than others in society.

Physiology is cool and this was a fun read.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

hm, this link 404s for me