> The results of female national elite athletes even indicate that the strength level attainable by extremely high training will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men.

Irrelevant, because it requires training, which is not at all what we're talking about when we're talking about the general population.

> Results indicate that untrained men have greater upper and lower body strength than trained women athletes in terms of both absolute and relative strength.

Let me know when half of men can iron cross their way across a difficult move with their "greater upper body strength".

The strength of strength-trained females being less than 50% of non-strength-trained males is not “irrelevant” at all.

You’ve chosen an arbitrary and niche sport and athlete because you literally don’t have any other examples at hand and have conveniently made it impossible to test. No one is foolish enough to boulder at this level without training.

She would lose a simple wrestling match against the vast majority of men regardless of their training.

Ok, so what's your point here? Men are just too dangerous to ever be allowed near women? Women need to have their own bathrooms to feel safe, even though peopel raping or otherwise assaulting the same gender happens too?

This is all a flimsy as fuck excuse to hate on trans people.

My point is that your claim that “The [strength] differences are not super significant” is clearly false (obvious to any child, really) and your climbing-specialist counterargument is insufficient to overcome that.

I don’t care about the rest of whatever you’re on about. Pseudoscientific nonsense is pseudoscientific nonsense no matter what the motivation or source, and I’m glad to see you’ve apparently conceded that your pseudoscience is nonsense and have moved on to the predictable red herring ad hominems.

> My point is that your claim that “The [strength] differences are not super significant” is clearly false

I disagree, but perhaps that's because the term "sexual dimorphism" was used, which is really a very minor effect in human biology compared to a lot of animals. Besides which, we have tools which can negate brute strength in a confrontation anyway.

> your climbing-specialist counterargument is insufficient to overcome that.

I concede this. I did not do a particularly good job making my case.

> have moved on to the predictable red herring ad hominems.

This entire thread is about trans people and the subject of "female safe spaces" was brought up as an argument against allowing people to transition. Forgive me if I assumed your arguments were ultimately in service to that, but you made no claim otherwise.

> the subject of “female safe spaces” was brought up as an argument against allowing people to transition

No, it was brought up as a counter to your claim that single-sex spaces have no value (“the ‘wrong’ bathroom… arbitrary bullshit” in your comment).

Nobody in response mentioned anything about transitioning or trans people at all.

You are welcome to make the case that the strength dimorphism shouldn’t be taken into account for individual scenarios, but the idea that it doesn’t really exist or is generally insignificant is frankly gaslighting and insulting to people born female.

The user who responded has made several transphobic posts, and this is entire discussion is inherently about trans issues.

That you and others would decide to attack my bad argument without attempting to make a statement about trans issues in itself is... well, something I can respect actually, I just find it difficult to believe, and also it is beside the point of the entire discussion thread.

> but the idea that it doesn’t really exist or is generally insignificant is frankly gaslighting and insulting to people born female.

...maybe. Worth considering. Anyway, I've conceded that I have made a bad argument, which is what you are claiming is all you care about in this instance.