Single, Unemployed Better "Gamers”

[Sauron]

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Trained women are on average about as strong as an average man by default.

I defy you to find me a single reliable study that proves that while accounting for body size. And no, going to the gym 5 times doesn't count as "training". There is some biological difference in bodily strength and that is apparent at the top levels but it's not nearly wide enough to make a high level woman athlete comparable with the average untrained Joe.

6 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I never claimed there was a biological advantage. You're the only one saying it. It's your knee jerk reaction at play. Quite funny actually. It goes to show you have an agenda and a bias. I present the facts as they stand today and you can't disprove them but you dislike them and therefore you want me to not say it?

Are you serious? You claimed what I said was wrong, and what I said was that there was no biological difference that justifies a higher average performance in videogames for men. Did you even bother reading what you were responding to or did you just spit out the first thing that came to your mind when you felt you were being challenged? You don't get to weasel out and act as though I was placing words into your mouth. If you didn't actually think I was wrong, just admit you misread or misunderstood and that will be that, but from your response it's very clear to me where the biases and agendas lie here.

[7Hertz]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I defy you to find me a single reliable study that proves that while accounting for body size. And no, going to the gym 5 times doesn't count as "training". There is some biological difference in bodily strength and that is apparent at the top levels but it's not nearly wide enough to make a high level woman athlete comparable with the average untrained Joe.

Are you serious? You claimed what I said was wrong, and what I said was that there was no biological difference that justifies a higher average performance in videogames for men. Did you even bother reading what you were responding to or did you just spit out the first thing that came to your mind when you felt you were being challenged? You don't get to weasel out and act as if I was placing words into your mouth. If you didn't actually think I was wrong, just admit you misread or misunderstood and that will be that, but from your response it's very clear to me where the biases and agendas lie here.

I don't look much at all, but i can move way more than my frame suggests, just shy of 6 foot 1 and almost 190 LBS.

I'm actually skinny but strength is not reliant on purely size it is also nervous system and how efficient your body is as using it's muscle density.

 

No female is going to make up the 50% handicap if i was training at the same rate.

 

Women are just not meant to be this way biologically.

 

 

[Trixanity]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I defy you to find me a single reliable study that proves that while accounting for body size. And no, going to the gym 5 times doesn't count as "training". There is some biological difference in bodily strength and that is apparent at the top levels but it's not nearly wide enough to make a high level woman athlete comparable with the average untrained Joe.

Are you serious? You claimed what I said was wrong, and what I said was that there was no biological difference that justifies a higher average performance in videogames for men. Did you even bother reading what you were responding to or did you just spit out the first thing that came to your mind when you felt you were being challenged? You don't get to weasel out and act as if I was placing words into your mouth. If you didn't actually think I was wrong, just admit you misread or misunderstood and that will be that, but from your response it's very clear to me where the biases and agendas lie here.

Well, let's put it this way: I said there wasn't any top female players. You said there is no biological advantage as a response like I was making things up. Why would you bring that up if you don't have an agenda? It's a knee jerk reaction to the facts.

 

There are only two options either you're wrong or you have insufficient data because the stats don't back up your claim. Otherwise we would have plenty top female players. There could be plenty reasons why not but many put in the hours yet aren't going anywhere competitively speaking. Why do you think that is? I'm curious.

 

I repeat: reply needs actual content.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, 7Hertz said:

I don't look much at all, but i can move way more than my frame suggests, just shy of 6 foot 1 and almost 190 LBS.

I'm actually skinny but strength is not reliant on purely size it is also nervous system and how efficient your body is as using it's muscle density.

I don't see why this is relevant.

1 minute ago, 7Hertz said:

No female is going to make up the 50% handicap if i was training at the same rate.

That's not what was being claimed, but rather that a trained woman couldn't outperform an untrained man.

 

Regardless, "no woman" is a bold claim and most likely far from the truth. Most women, maybe, but there are 4 billion women on the planet and I'm pretty sure some of them will be stronger than you even without training.

4 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Well, let's put it this way: I said there wasn't any top female players.

No, you did not. You said that

Quote

We know that in practically all competitive scenes that's it's basically only transgenders that can hang with the top tier in terms of skill.

keyword is can instead of do. This unambiguously implies an inherent difference between men (and transgender women) and women. I called bs because that's simply not the case, whereas it may be in "conventional" sports. If you agree, why bother saying I was wrong?

7 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

There are only two options either you're wrong or you have insufficient data because the stats don't back up your claim.

And here it is again - I'm wrong about what? You keep saying that you didn't claim there was a biological difference in videogames, yet here you are defending that idea. Stop dancing around the issue and say it clearly, this is getting boring. If you're ashamed of what you think to the point that you refuse to admit it, maybe reconsider your thought process.

9 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

There could be plenty reasons why not but many put in the hours yet aren't going anywhere competitively speaking. Why do you think that is? I'm curious.

Man, IF ONLY I had told you that in my first reply.

Quote

The reason we don't see many women at the "top tier" in videogame competition is clearly in the numbers; 4% of these people were female if we believe the statistic, and even if we don't believe this there are plenty of statistics that show that women make up a small minority of these games' audience.

"many put in the hours" - how do you know that? Where are these "many" women grinding to become dota 2 pros and failing? Every statistic indicates that the number of women playing these games is drastically lower to that of men. Who's contesting the facts here?

[7Hertz]

Just now, Sauron said:

I don't see why this is relevant.

That's not what was being claimed, but rather that a trained woman couldn't outperform an untrained man.

 

Regardless, "no woman" is a bold claim and most likely far from the truth. Most women, maybe, but there are 4 billion women on the planet and I'm pretty sure some of them will be stronger than you even without training.

No, you did not. You said that

keyword is can instead of do. This unambiguously implies an inherent difference between men (and transgender women) and women. I called bs because that's simply not the case, whereas it may be in "conventional" sports. If you agree, why bother saying I was wrong?

And here it is again - I'm wrong about what? You keep saying that you didn't claim there was a biological difference in videogames, yet here you are defending that idea. Stop dancing around the issue and say it clearly, this is getting boring. If you're ashamed of what you think to the point that you refuse to admit it, maybe reconsider your thought process.

Man, IF ONLY I had told you that in my first reply.

"many put in the hours" - how do you know that? Where are these "many" women grinding to become dota 2 pros and failing? Every statistic indicates that the number of women playing these games is drastically lower to that of men. Who's contesting the facts here?

Well we have yet to see women truly out strength an average man, you mean the oddity that takes steroids?

That is their prerogative.

You mean those extremely rare 6 foot 7 giant women? the ones that well were properly 2-3 in the last 100 years?

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, 7Hertz said:

Well we have yet to see women truly out strength an average man, you mean the oddity that takes steroids?

That is their prerogative.

You mean those extremely rare 6 foot 7 giant women? the ones that well were properly 2-3 in the last 100 years?

 

What people think is an average man:

Spoiler

 

What an average man actually is currently, in this time period:

Spoiler

 

Quote

Estimated (Age-Adjusted) Percentage of US Adults with Overweight and Obesity by Sex,  2013–2014  NHANES Data

	All (Men and Women)	Men	Women
Overweight or Obesity	70.2	73.7	66.9
Overweight	32.5	38.7	26.5
Obesity (including extreme obesity)	37.7	35	40.4
Extreme obesity	7.7	5.5	9.9

As shown in the above table

• More than 2 in 3 adults (70.2 percent) were considered to be overweight or have obesity
• About 1 in 3 adults (32.5 percent) were considered to be overweight
• More than 1 in 3 adults (37.7 percent) were considered to have obesity
• About 1 in 13 adults (7.7 percent) were considered to have extreme obesity
• More than 1 in 3 (38.7 percent) of men, and about 1 in 4 (26.5 percent) of women were considered to be overweight
• Obesity was higher in women (about 40 percent) than men (35 percent)
• Extreme obesity was higher in women (9.9 percent) than men (5.5 percent)
• Almost 3 in 4 men (73.7 percent) were considered to be overweight or have obesity; and about 2 in 3 women (66.9) were considered to be overweight or have obesity.

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity

[7Hertz]

Just now, leadeater said:

 

What people think is an average man:

  Hide contents

 

What an average man actually is currently, in this time period:

  Hide contents

 

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity

Well i'm above average, that's nice to know, however strength? ability?

 

I would weigh the image of the left person is more capable in strength tasks vs a semi trained average woman, endurance? it is strength over time, he may lose to that, give him 2 weeks he might have her in the bag.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, 7Hertz said:

I would weigh the image of the left person is more capable in strength tasks vs a semi trained average woman, endurance? it is strength over time, he may lose to that, give him 2 weeks he might have her in the bag.

2 weeks hell no, if combating obesity were that easy it wouldn't be a problem on pretty much an epidemic scale. Losing weight is extremely hard, gaining weight is sadly easy.

 

And no once any kind of training is introduced capability increases massively, any female considered moderately fit would match strength of those overweight men plus out endure them by a country mile. Unfit, lazy men just aren't as strong as people believe, or want to believe.

 

FYI: The left obese person is most likely a teenager.

 

Edit:

Being able to leverage your weight is not strength, just so that is clear. Often large people are utilizing mass not strength.

[Arika]

oooooh boy, there are so many things that i want to respond to in this thread, but maybe it's better that i don't.

[7Hertz]

Just now, leadeater said:

2 weeks hell no, if combating obesity were that easy it wouldn't be a problem on pretty much an epidemic scale. Lose weight is extremely hard, gaining weight is sadly easy.

 

And no once any kind of training is introduced capability increases massively, any female considered moderately fit would match strength of those overweight men plus out endure them by a country mile. Unfit, lazy men just aren't as strong as people believe, or want to believe.

 

FYI: The left obese person is most likely a teenager.

I see, so we have gone from biological facts to using someone's weight against them.

 

I wonder if females could outpace Riskishi Fatu or this boxer...

 

 

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, 7Hertz said:

I see, so we have gone from biological facts to using someone's weight against them.

 

I wonder if females could outpace Riskishi Fatu or this boxer...

I guess there is no point here, final note large boxers are not unfit nor don't train. This discussion is about men that DO NOT vs female that moderately DO.

 

Edit:

And may I point out I explicitly have said there is biological advantages for men backed by medical and sport science. Biology doesn't outweigh all factors and situations.

[7Hertz]

Muhammad Ali, smaller than his foes, took them down.

Speed / nervous system, he also never trained before some of his fights and still knocked them clean out and lasted way passed 9 rounds.

 

 

[7Hertz]

Just now, leadeater said:

I guess there is no point here, final note large boxers are not unfit nor don't train. This discussion is about men that DO NOT vs female that moderately DO.

Right but you used weight as the argument, so if a skinny dude is untrained, he is also weaker than the average semi trained female? your logic is not straight forward.

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, 7Hertz said:

Well we have yet to see women truly out strength an average man

What?

Spoiler

this woman doesn't even look that pumped, she's about the same size as the guy and clearly isn't taking any steroids (not that the others are):

 

It took me less than 5 minutes to find examples...

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And no once any kind of training is introduced capability increases massively, any female considered moderately fit would match strength of those overweight men plus out endure them by a country mile. Unfit, lazy men just aren't as strong as people believe, or want to believe.

[7Hertz]

Just now, Sauron said:

What?

  Hide contents

this woman doesn't even look that pumped, she's about the same size as the guy and clearly isn't taking any steroids (not that the others are):

 

It took me less than 5 minutes to find examples...

 

These women train day in day out vs some guy who don't.

I said semi trained, someone who just runs every now and then, uses weights once every week or two, not the gym nut with body dysphoria.

 

You use logic that goes outside of the context used to suit your argument.

 

[Trixanity]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I don't see why this is relevant.

That's not what was being claimed, but rather that a trained woman couldn't outperform an untrained man.

 

Regardless, "no woman" is a bold claim and most likely far from the truth. Most women, maybe, but there are 4 billion women on the planet and I'm pretty sure some of them will be stronger than you even without training.

No, you did not. You said that

keyword is can instead of do. This unambiguously implies an inherent difference between men (and transgender women) and women. I called bs because that's simply not the case, whereas it may be in "conventional" sports. If you agree, why bother saying I was wrong?

And here it is again - I'm wrong about what? You keep saying that you didn't claim there was a biological difference in videogames, yet here you are defending that idea. Stop dancing around the issue and say it clearly, this is getting boring. If you're ashamed of what you think to the point that you refuse to admit it, maybe reconsider your thought process.

Man, IF ONLY I had told you that in my first reply.

"many put in the hours" - how do you know that? Where are these "many" women grinding to become dota 2 pros and failing? Every statistic indicates that the number of women playing these games is drastically lower to that of men. Who's contesting the facts here?

I noted the transgender because I've heard it frequently that "there are definitely top female players look at X" and lo and behold: it's a transgender person (I should perhaps specify male-to-female). What that indicates is that we've yet to see a female reach that level.

 

You're arguing semantics because that's all you've got, friend. I asked you to find me a a top female pro player. Not just a female pro player because there are plenty of those but one that can genuinely compete with the best male players. I just haven't seen one. I mainly follow CS and it's a decent game to use because it's a scene that has evolved for 20 years and therefore you'd think a single female player would have risen above and if nothing else played on a top male team (would obviously be more difficult if we insisted on gathering five players and get them to that level as an all female team). Either way: isn't it odd that we primarily see males at the top and then the odd transgender woman get there too? There is nothing preventing a female player from getting there yet it just isn't happening yet.

 

I would hope that changes because I personally can't think of a biological reason why there would be any inherent advantage. However I wouldn't claim that there isn't one because I simply don't know and I don't think you have the data or the background to categorically rule it out either hence the oddity in your assertiveness given the lack of evidence. You can make a hypothesis if you want but preface it first.

 

You're basically trying to get me to admit to something because it would somehow put me on that "other team" that's in opposition to your ideas. It doesn't work like that, mate. Even the notion of "shame" is funny. You're implying I should be ashamed somehow because I've laid it out how it is. You seem to think that I for some reason want it to be like that and perhaps even have an agenda to keep it that way. That's cute. Is this where I should say "facts don't care about your feelings"?

 

Many put in the hours because you can actually track rank and hours played. Many stream their play sessions. You could of course argue they aren't trying to go pro but playing competitively and practicing to become better should at least put you towards that path in some way even if it's not a goal at all. When I played competitively I never played with the intention of going pro and never did, yet I put in the hours to get better and I did improve. That's how pro players emerge. Previously there was some gatekeeping but today there's plenty of way to get exposure. If you're good enough, you'll get there. I'd say the opportunity to get there has never been greater and the number of female players likewise. From what I can tell the only thing that favors women in this argument is sample size as you rightly mention. There are definitely fewer players but again: why wouldn't there be one player? Just one? That's not a lot to ask. Let's assume that male players outnumber females 20 to 1. Let's assume there are a 300 top tier pro players for the sake of argument. Why couldn't there be just one female among them? Even if we assume that for one reason or the other that factors favor males greatly. Why are we yet to see that one girl get there? Even given my limited knowledge of statistics, you'd think that there should at least be a handful. Yet there isn't. Even in 1v1 games they go missing so that eliminates the team aspect keeping out females as you'd otherwise imagine that some male teams might keep out female players for whatever reason.

 

The short of it all is that the claims I've made are verifiable. People have gone over this before. The topic of female top players remains a hot topic and for some (even you) it's apparently very sensitive. There just aren't any female top tier players despite the fact that there should be with what limited knowledge we have of each factor going into becoming a top tier player.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, 7Hertz said:

Right but you used weight as the argument, so if a skinny dude is untrained, he is also weaker than the average semi trained female? your logic is not straight forward.

It is simple if you actually read what I wrote. You're pointing out issues in generalizations, which is exactly what you are/were doing. The average man argument is the context and the average man is obese and unfit, that 'man' can in all likelihood overpower even a moderately fit female but it's not due to actual muscle strength alone.

 

And as much as this conversation needs properly addressing it's off topic as hell now and neither do I get the sense it will lead to anything productive.

 

So back to e-sports.

[7Hertz]

Another idiocy is people think a muscle with a higher peak is larger and stronger, it's false, denser fibers in muscle are stronger than larger with less, they have more power behind them in short burst also it's why Bruce Lee was so strong for his tiny size.

 

The female in the videos of arm wrestling have large belly biceps.

[NeuesTestament]

Well, in CSGO female "pro" teams get destroyed by male semi pro or even amateur teams all the time. Don't know about other E-sports though.

[Trixanity]

9 minutes ago, NeuesTestament said:

Well, in CSGO female "pro" teams get destroyed by male semi pro or even amateur teams all the time. Don't know about other E-sports though.

That's part of my point actually. You know these female players play a lot - possibly more than the amateur teams (due to them working jobs on the side to sustain them) and yet the female teams aren't laying the smackdown on the amateur teams as you'd think they'd do if you didn't follow the scene. Practice is so important yet teams that ostensibly practice less are better. Not to mention that there are open qualifiers for many tournaments so anyone can enter. There is no way to keep out a great female team. However they can't qualify. For those who don't know: female teams play both female-only tournaments and open tournaments (by open I mean there are no gender rules) but the former is where the female teams get their prize money and trophies. 

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I defy you to find me a single reliable study that proves that while accounting for body size. And no, going to the gym 5 times doesn't count as "training". There is some biological difference in bodily strength and that is apparent at the top levels but it's not nearly wide enough to make a high level woman athlete comparable with the average untrained Joe.

Are you serious? You claimed what I said was wrong, and what I said was that there was no biological difference that justifies a higher average performance in videogames for men. Did you even bother reading what you were responding to or did you just spit out the first thing that came to your mind when you felt you were being challenged? You don't get to weasel out and act as if I was placing words into your mouth. If you didn't actually think I was wrong, just admit you misread or misunderstood and that will be that, but from your response it's very clear to me where the biases and agendas lie here.

Average pal, the keyword is average. If you have a single brute female that doesn't make it a gender definition. I may not be the outliner of male strength either, but on average, men do and studies have shown upper body in particular. I've read through all this shit few years ago (which is why I can't be bothered to dig it out again, you may easily find it by searching basic keywords on this matter) when there were big discussions about misogyny, sexism and shit in gaming and this was also part of discussions when people were crying how men and women are all the same, even in physical department and which is why transgenders are such a controversy in sports because EVERY single case where M2F transgenders competed with women, they absolutely annihilated women. Because despite hormonal therapy, there are things that do not change with hormones or take very long time to show regression and stamina and raw power is one of those.

 

I just find it laughable how people always get offended because there are things where men are just better than women (or vice versa for that matter). We are of same species, but we aren't the same, not physically and not even mentally and early life experiences don't necessarily reflect that either (when people say boys like cars and masculine things because they are taught into that). We never were and most likely never will be or it'll take hundreds or thousands of years of systematic soy infusion and feminization of boys to achieve that, which would basically be systematic indoctrination and that's just idiotic. I see nothing wrong if women aren't as strong as men or play games as good as men. We're not meant to be the same. Women have better better spacial awareness, better sense for aesthetics, better at communication and empathy, multitasking has been their thing to a point where even men are joking how we just can't do it at all etc. We're different and that's actually OK. We're different physically and mentally and together it just works because we kinda complement each other. We don't need 50/50 representation in everything and this has been the annoyance for ages and only ones bitching about it are feminists pretty much. I bet this "study" was issued by the same people, because they desperately want men and women to be the same at all cost.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, 7Hertz said:

These women train day in day out vs some guy who don't.

You said:

Quote

Well we have yet to see women truly out strength an average man

make up your mind. You also still have to show me a single example of an "average man" beating an average trained woman. Oh, and this is just arm wrestling, which measures absolute arm strength (and even then, not every arm related muscle is used); in most disciplines it's much easier for women to outperform untrained men. I do rock climbing and I constantly see women do just as well as men who have been training for roughly the same amount of time, sometimes better.

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

You're arguing semantics because that's all you've got, friend.

No, I'm arguing semantics because that's all you've been doing since I made my original point.

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

I asked you to find me a a top female pro player.

I never claimed I could. You made that up because you can't back up your original statements. Also, you're arguing semantics.

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

Either way: isn't it odd that we primarily see males at the top and then the odd transgender woman get there too? There is nothing preventing a female player from getting there yet it just isn't happening yet.

I already answered that twice. Do you think if you keep repeating it it will eventually become a point in your favor?

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

You're basically trying to get me to admit to something because it would somehow put me on that "other team" that's in opposition to your ideas. It doesn't work like that, mate. Even the notion of "shame" is funny. You're implying I should be ashamed somehow because I've laid it out how it is. You seem to think that I for some reason want it to be like that and perhaps even have an agenda to keep it that way. That's cute. Is this where I should say "facts don't care about your feelings"?

That's rich coming from the guy who has yet to present a single fact other than "there aren't many women at the top of esports leaderboards". I didn't say you should be ashamed, I said you seem ashamed because you keep avoiding to "lay it out how it is"; you're clearly trying to push an idea, and yet when you get called out on it you're evasive - if you DON'T believe that, SAY IT CLEARLY instead of saying you don't and then defending it as if you did. I presented some facts, you claimed I was wrong and couldn't do anything to prove it other than attack my supposed "bias" and "agenda". You're the one appealing to feelings over facts here. Reality check for you. I will stop calling you out on it when you stop doing it.

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

The short of it all is that the claims I've made are verifiable. People have gone over this before.

And yet you haven't provided a single reliable source for your claims that:

• Only transgender women can compete with men at the highest levels of esports
• "Many" women try and fail to become pro players
• More importantly when it comes to this discussion, your claim that I was wrong when I said that:

Quote

Men are only, on average, better at conventional sports because of their typically higher muscle density and faster muscle growth under training. This difference is completely irrelevant in a variety of competitions, including videogames - or can you cite me any real study (not like this one) that shows a biological difference in the ability to play a videogame?

Don't bother replying if you can't even back up your original claim. Everything else you've been saying has been going off topic to avoid having to back up your first reply to me.

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

When I played competitively I never played with the intention of going pro and never did, yet I put in the hours to get better and I did improve. That's how pro players emerge. Previously there was some gatekeeping but today there's plenty of way to get exposure. If you're good enough, you'll get there. I'd say the opportunity to get there has never been greater and the number of female players likewise. From what I can tell the only thing that favors women in this argument is sample size as you rightly mention. There are definitely fewer players but again: why wouldn't there be one player?

No, that's not how pro players emerge. A few, maybe, but most of them dedicate their entire days to practicing that single game. It doesn't matter how talented you are, if you don't do that you're extremely unlikely to ever reach the top. That goes for any competitive sport or game, too. Women are heavily discouraged at every turn from doing that, and the very low number of women actually playing means that there are very few girls who actually decide to try - which, by the way, is no guarantee of success even if you're a male.

 

Regardless, it is simply not true that there isn't "just one" female pro esports player, not even within CS:GO. Behold, the "just one":

• Benita "bENITA" Novshadian

• Amanda "rain" Smith

• Christine "potter" Chi

• Stephanie "missharvey" Harvey

I specifically mentioned these people over others because they have played (and won tournaments) with and against men, though many women in esports prefer to play in female only tournaments. Here's waiting for your "those don't count because" reply.

31 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Average pal, the keyword is average.

Show me ONE reliable study that proves that, on average, trained women aren't as strong as the average untrained man. If you're so well educated on the subject it should be easy. The only thing I found by googling is a 1981 study which compared college girls who played basketball to (according to the abstract) a group of "untrained" men, but if you actually read the paper you'll find that

 

Which does not mean they were specifically required to be untrained or "average". Furthermore, the study compared strength in terms of bench pressing and leg pressing, neither of which is specifically trained for in basketball. Third, the average bench press reported regarding the men in the study is 83KG, far higher than the commonly accepted average of about 60KG. Fourth, the study also states that, when accounting for body size, the difference was much lower and the lower body strength was basically identical (to, may I remind you, above average men). And of course, in 40 years training regimens and average performance are likely to have changed, probably for the better.

33 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

when people were crying how men and women are all the same, even in physical department

I never claimed that there was no physical difference between men and women (on average). I'm merely saying that it's not true that a trained woman is weaker than an untrained man (again, on average).

36 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I bet this "study" was issued by the same people, because they desperately want men and women to be the same at all cost.

So I guess science is only valid when it suits you? Why does it matter who made a study if the science is accurate?

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Because the entirety of gaming is DOTA2 only, apparently... Besides, while some are endlessly bitching how games are sexist and whatnot, games are really the most fair competitive stuff between genders because physical differences that are in favor of males in real sports disappear in digital games. It's all down to your reflexes and thinking.

 

Also lets don't stretch the "almost 50% of gamers are women" thing. If you look globally, maybe. But there is this weird segment of mobile games and I'm honestly just not seeing the trend where women would be greatly engaged in gaming as a whole group, they are more into fitness, makeup and stuff where gaming is still considered childish, though way less than in 90's or early 2000's. It also heavily depends on games. Overwatch for example has a lot more women playing because of it's cutesy characters and stuff compared to Call of Duty or Battlefield. Not gonna say there aren't any women playing these, they just generally don't seem engaged in such games because they are too serious.

Yeah there is a surprising amount of women who play overwatch compared to the other games I have played. That being said I tend to see way more women in games at gold to plat level. At masters I barely see any so I am a bit sceptical about the numbers they got. Granted dota and overwatch are different games so maybe it isn't a good comparison. 

[7Hertz]

Sauron, your logic is still backwards, on a level playing field all the way to the top a man will out strength any female.

 

There is no refuting this, it is impossible to refute. And i laughed at the clown who put a boxer vs an arm wrestler, a boxer does not train the arms as much as people think, this slows them down, heavyweights are not as fast as a welter weight but a welter weight cannot vs a heavy weight due to very real issues, such as the heavy weight simply knocking the welterweight in half with a couple of blows.

 

No amount of one upping is going to change these facts.

 

Certain regiments, certain special force regiments too in the army do not have females, not because they are not allowed to serve, but because they don't pass the training required. I was in 7th Para, no females are in that regiment, females attempt the training, they fail.

Females have passed commando training, the all arms course, it's a different type of training compared to Para's, Para training is way more physical and demands high endurance & speed together.

 

There are attached forces to the Para's that include females, medics.. they don't undergo the same training.

 

 

 

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/infantry/parachute-regiment/

 

 

 

And as for E-sports, CSGO.. female competition is no where close to male.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RejZoR]

@Brooksie359

I think the reason is, like I said, the cutesy characters. I see a lot of women play Widow, D.Va, Mercy, Ana, Brigitte etc. Especially D.Va is one of those especially cute ones with her squeaky voice and childish gestures or actions. They probably play others too, but these the most because they relate the most to them coz they are of the same gender in the game too.

 

Personally, I don't care about that all that much and more for the efficiency and cool factor. My main is Moira so... She just works the best with my play style opposed to Lucio, Mercy or other supports/healers.

 

@7Hertz

Some people refuse to accept it, because they think it's sexist. Facts aren't sexist. It's just a natural difference in physiology of us humans.