Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Peterkin last won the day on April 17

Peterkin had the most liked content!


About Peterkin

  • Birthday 05/22/1947

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    aesthetics, animals, anthropology, art, consciousness, craft, ecology, ethics, extraterrestrial life, forensics, gardening, literature, medicine, psychology, sociology
  • College Major/Degree
    C College Of Medical Laboratory Technologists Of Ontario; CSLT registration; extra courses at UofT,
  • Favorite Area of Science
    medicine, ecology, psychology
  • Biography
    long, long ago, in a country far, far away.... meh, I've had six lives since then, none of them particularly interesting
  • Occupation
    semi-extinct scribbler

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Peterkin's Achievements


Primate (9/13)



  1. Try a size/skill vs sex/age categorization for five years and see what happens. If oddly gendered individuals find their way into sports from which they had been barred, good for them. If they don't fit in, think of some other way. Nobody should be prevented from doing what they love, just because of old rules, based on outmoded assumptions. Sports and games should not be about exclusion.
  2. They're coming to take away your guns. They're coming to take away your trucks. They're coming to take away your cattle. They're coming to take away your supremacy. (Maybe we should?)
  3. I like these. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QbbMBLhug
  4. It might be more productive to start from what isn't wrong and work outward, in all directions, from there.
  5. You know the refrain: "Now is not the time for legislation; now is the time for thoughts and prayers."
  6. There is also a question of accuracy. In driving school, the faster reaction time of male students translated into a higher percentage of virtual accidents: they'd step on the brake sooner, but sometimes it was the gas pedal instead; the girls were generally (not uniformly) a fraction of a second slower, but (generally, not uniformly) more accurate. You can see this in soccer. The MLS pro teams are painful to watch: they have a lot off-side calls and fouls, collide with each other, make sloppy passes and high, wide goal shots, can't control the ball - but they're decisive, run very fast and kick very hard. The North American women's teams are much better co-ordinated. Maybe they just have better [male] coaches?
  7. It might be interesting, if that trend were to reach sufficient momentum. I don't really think there's time. Cars, planes, motorbikes and sailboats are not evolutionary developments. Or necessities, for that matter. No ape ever had to adapt riding or driving muscles. Where the motive power is independent of the athlete, body shape and muscle-mass are not issues. As for the psychological aspect of sex differentiation, the assumptions have been pretty just that - assumptions based on the observation of society from the POV of the observer (20th century red state American, 18th century French aristocrat, 8th century Druid priestess, 2nd century BCE Greek pedagogue or 6th century BCE Chinese civil servant) - always different, always changing. Attitudes and interests are formed early in life, and heavily influenced by the social environment. So easy, in fact, as to appear facile and perhaps merit a deeper examination. I don't know; I'm merely speculating. Sports and games go a very long way back in human prehistory, but have only recently become a commercial and scientific endeavor. Many children participate at the play level; only a few exceptional athletes go on to the big money, the big trophies and fame - and they don't do it through their own individual effort. Sport in this kind of framework is not an evolutionary development; the character traits required to thrive in this kind of sport environment is not an evolutionary necessity - any more than the traits required to manipulate mechanical devices. https://azcaa.com/benefits-of-co-ed-sports/ Would it really be so terrible to sort child teams by size and skill, rather than age and sex? In high school and college - mating age - other considerations may intrude - but probably not among serious athletes. (Of course, I'm against 'serious' sport to begin with. It's no fun anymore.)
  8. Opportunity, access, early training, money, facilities, free time, parental and community support, societal and peer approval. It's largely a question of how children are treated. If the general assumption is that girls are good at/for some things and boys are good at other things, the scope of talent development is limited for both.
  9. Olympics may not count as evidence, but https://www.pledgesports.org/2018/12/sports-where-men-and-women-compete/ But at east some sporting organizations acknowledge that sometimes skill is more decisive than progenerative hardware. Something else, evidently.
  10. Ride horses. In many different kinds of competition. Also drive them in sulkies. But if Olympic medals are not proof of riding ability, I guess there must be some other criterion. What, you mean I sidestepped a gotcha by restating what I had been saying all along? Sorry I missed it. Thank you for not going straight to Hitler. Which was laid by - whom, where, in what way?
  11. And way back there somewhere, I think I advocated for size/weight/level categories, so that small men and women could also participate. That right. They can, they have, they won Olympic medals.
  12. You asked whether, with the right training, women can become jockeys. They have become jockeys, which ought to be sufficient proof that they can. They're not competing against men in the race; the horses (colts, fillies, mares, stallions and geldings - nobody seems to mind about that) are competing against other horses. All the jockeys are competing for is a chance to ride the best horses in the most prestigious races. As I'm growing tired of pointing out, it's not like basketball.
  13. It was an answer to your question. Women do all kinds of things now that only men used to be allowed to to do: drive cars, study medicine, vote... What's the big deal? In a sport where the motive power comes from a source other than the human - whether that's a car, a horse, a camel or an airplane - skill and brains count for more than muscle. (Of course, that doesn't mean black men can play baseball....)
  14. Sure. Female jockeys have been around for a century.
  15. Thighs and calves. Jockeys - and for that matter, point-to-point riders - don't have their seat on the saddle most of the time; they're crouching in the stirrup. The calf muscles must be sufficiently developed to support the rider's own weight for sustained periods in that awkward position, and also to raise their seat up repeatedly. The thighs are mainly used to give subtle directions. Arm strength doesn't come into play: a five-year-old child can injure a horse's mouth (indeed, beginners have to be watched closely, not to pull on the reins.) Halter reins (no mouthpiece, no metal) require better communication with the horse. In either case, brute force should never apply.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.