The court ruling on LGBT ENDS THIS DEBATE

[thomasdixon]

The court ruling on LGBT ENDS THIS DEBATE
I believe the courts should rule that a person’s gender is the gender stated on one’s birth certificate and the gender classification cannot be changed, period, nada, zip, never.
(:-

[brunumb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #46]

If that Canadian rugby player is representative of the 'new reality', then there is no difference between men and women. The terms has become meaningless. Every consideration that we currently give to one group or the other is wrong. Homosexuality no longer exists. You can't be trans because you are already what you want to be. No need to put on any external display. Everyone is now just a person and all else is role play. The young female (?) in the video suggested that you need to have a PhD to tell a man from a woman. No problem now. Neither really exists.

[otseng]

Moderator Action



Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[Clownboat]

I can't predict what the outcome is,

It doesn't even seem like you are trying and you failed to address what this is about, the biological differences between a biological man and a biological woman.
<snipped a bunch of talk about vaginas and ejaculating penises>

This is Conservatism against a new world.

No, its a discussion about biological men competing against biological women. Specifically the Canadian rugby player. It seems that you would rather distract with politics then have a fruitful discussion. Why is that?

<snipped more Conservative hatred as it is irrelevant, off topic and boring. I am not here to defend or war against conservatives with you.>

<snipped more anti conservative rhetoric>

<snipped more anti conservative rhetoric>

And, isn't it telling - doesn't it give you pause - that the only bone of contention, so to speak, is sports?

That is only one bone of contention. Care to address biological men competing against biological women?

What you failed to address (is below) and I believe it is because you are blinded by political hatred and it is more important for you to hate on conservatives then to have a discussion about the differences between biological men vs biological women.

Do you think there are many biological females that could compete in the NBA currently? There is no rule preventing women from playing in the NBA by the way. Now consider the inverse. Do you think there would be many biological males that could could compete in the WNBA?

Surely you realize why biological women taking over men's sports is a non issue, right? If so, you should be able to see the inverse I would think with biological men taking over women's sports.

Sure, they make a big case about some children getting puberty blockers until they are older (and make outlandish stories of mutilations - while praising circumcision), but for some reason all the Virtue Signaling from Conservatives is about fairness in Sports.

What are you on about? I haven't mentioned puberty blockers. Come back....

I'll remind you, some people are born with natural advantages.

Why would you remind me of such a thing? Does that make the biological differences between men and woman go away or is it just a way to pretend they don't exist because some woman are taller than others?

Some men have natural advantages over other men. Therefore, there should be one boxing division for all humans.... That wouldn't follow.

That's why many people don't make it to the Big Leagues. Should we ban Black people (again) because of their natural abilities? Or, people like Phelps who have abnoramally shaped bodies and brains specifically suited to be a great swimmer?

I don't think we should ban Black people from any sports nor should Phelps be band as a swimmer. Please come back....

Nope - it's all about the genitalia.

Stop making it all about genitalia!
There are biological differences between biological men and biological woman. You are trying to distract by making this about wieners. Please stop.

What is the real story here, in your mind? Is it about Sports? Are you worried that a woman is going to beat you in a race?

Am I worried that a woman is going to beat me? Obviously you are not paying attention to the debate we are having!
'What is the real story here? Where did the man hurt you?' <----- This is not debate.
I have seen you do better, but once politics are on the table, you seem to lose your ability to debate rationally and end up hating on conservatives and talking about vaginas and ejaculating penises. Come back....

Once you have responded to this post with your anti conservative whatever, I would love your thoughts on just one thing, pretty, pretty please:
Why is biological women taking over men's sports a non issue? (Not one mention of vaginas or penises or conservatives by the way).

[boatsnguitars]

I can't predict what the outcome is,

It doesn't even seem like you are trying and you failed to address what this is about, the biological differences between a biological man and a biological woman.
<snipped a bunch of talk about vaginas and ejaculating penises>

This is Conservatism against a new world.

No, its a discussion about biological men competing against biological women. Specifically the Canadian rugby player. It seems that you would rather distract with politics then have a fruitful discussion. Why is that?

<snipped more Conservative hatred as it is irrelevant, off topic and boring. I am not here to defend or war against conservatives with you.>

<snipped more anti conservative rhetoric>

<snipped more anti conservative rhetoric>

And, isn't it telling - doesn't it give you pause - that the only bone of contention, so to speak, is sports?

That is only one bone of contention. Care to address biological men competing against biological women?

What you failed to address (is below) and I believe it is because you are blinded by political hatred and it is more important for you to hate on conservatives then to have a discussion about the differences between biological men vs biological women.

Do you think there are many biological females that could compete in the NBA currently? There is no rule preventing women from playing in the NBA by the way. Now consider the inverse. Do you think there would be many biological males that could could compete in the WNBA?

Surely you realize why biological women taking over men's sports is a non issue, right? If so, you should be able to see the inverse I would think with biological men taking over women's sports.

Sure, they make a big case about some children getting puberty blockers until they are older (and make outlandish stories of mutilations - while praising circumcision), but for some reason all the Virtue Signaling from Conservatives is about fairness in Sports.

What are you on about? I haven't mentioned puberty blockers. Come back....

I'll remind you, some people are born with natural advantages.

Why would you remind me of such a thing? Does that make the biological differences between men and woman go away or is it just a way to pretend they don't exist because some woman are taller than others?

Some men have natural advantages over other men. Therefore, there should be one boxing division for all humans.... That wouldn't follow.

That's why many people don't make it to the Big Leagues. Should we ban Black people (again) because of their natural abilities? Or, people like Phelps who have abnoramally shaped bodies and brains specifically suited to be a great swimmer?

I don't think we should ban Black people from any sports nor should Phelps be band as a swimmer. Please come back....

Nope - it's all about the genitalia.

Stop making it all about genitalia!
There are biological differences between biological men and biological woman. You are trying to distract by making this about wieners. Please stop.

What is the real story here, in your mind? Is it about Sports? Are you worried that a woman is going to beat you in a race?

Am I worried that a woman is going to beat me? Obviously you are not paying attention to the debate we are having!
'What is the real story here? Where did the man hurt you?' <----- This is not debate.
I have seen you do better, but once politics are on the table, you seem to lose your ability to debate rationally and end up hating on conservatives and talking about vaginas and ejaculating penises. Come back....

Once you have responded to this post with your anti conservative whatever, I would love your thoughts on just one thing, pretty, pretty please:
Why is biological women taking over men's sports a non issue? (Not one mention of vaginas or penises or conservatives by the way).

The differences is penises and vaginas. There are men who are small - some less than 5 feet tall, they are thin and - dare i say - feminine. There are women who are large - masculine and have more muscle mass than many men. You seem to ignore this. In fact, you seem to not appreciate the wide range of physical abilities in humans. You seem to not care that some men are born with a natural ability over other men - you only care when there are penises and vaginas involved.

Women taking over men's sport is a non-issue. It's not happening, it's not going to happen. Conservatives love to dream of slippery slope arguments, as if they are valid.
For example, they worried about letting a Black guy play Baseball. They thought it would be the end of civilization. Turns out, it wasn't.

All the time you've been asking me to argue, you haven't laid out one argument for what to do with Trans people in your precious sporting events, other than "Canadian Rugby Player!"

Your entire point seems to be "Conserve the Status Quo".

[Clownboat]

The differences is penises and vaginas.

You are wrong and you demonstrated that you are wrong by not addressing why women taking over men's sports is a non issue.
I know why it is a non issue and I'm not alone. You don't because you make it all about penises and vaginas. I would too if I wanted to avoid the biological differences between biological men and biological women.

There are men who are small - some less than 5 feet tall, they are thin and - dare i say - feminine. There are women who are large - masculine and have more muscle mass than many men. You seem to ignore this.

I do not ignore these outliers. You seem to want to pretend that outliers are the norm. Pointing to short men does not make the biological differences go away, yet you refuse to address them. I'm willing to hear arguments as to why biological men should be allowed to compete against women, but you are not making any.

In fact, you seem to not appreciate the wide range of physical abilities in humans.

I'm acknowledging the biological differences, not ignoring them! I'm acknowledging that biological men competing against biological women will reduce the chances for biological women to compete. I currently appreciate that women can play sports like men can and see biological men competing against biological women as something that will prevent women from doing what men enjoy. It is you that seems to be doing the ignoring.

I think it is evil to restrict a right that I hold dear for myself from others.
What I mean: I enjoy marriage and believe other consenting adults should have such a right, full stop.
I enjoy the opportunity to compete against other biological men in sports and would find it evil to restrict women from doing this thing that I enjoy as a man. I acknowledge that having biological men competing against biological women will inhibit the women's ability to enjoy this thing I currently enjoy for myself. I acknowledge that biological women will never take over men's sports and I understand why.

You seem to not care that some men are born with a natural ability over other men

Not once in this thread have I alluded to such a thing! That some men are born with abilities over other men is natural and I accept it. I don't find it quite as natural to allow biological men to compete against biological women as the playing field is not level. You also know that the playing field is not level and this is made abundantly clear by the fact that biological women cannot compete against biological men (exceptions to every rule of course).

you only care when there are penises and vaginas involved.

I wish you would stop projecting your obsession with penises and vaginas as I'm not sure what they have to do with our discussion.

Women taking over men's sport is a non-issue. It's not happening, it's not going to happen.

I know! It is only biological women that will potentially suffer. Biological men will not. This is where we start to enter the area of restricting a right I hold dear for myself from another. Why do you seek to only protect biological men when it comes to sports? Surely you agree that biological women should be able to participate in sports if they so choose, right?

Conservatives love to dream of slippery slope arguments, as if they are valid.

What are you talking about and what does this have to do with what we are discussing?

For example, they worried about letting a Black guy play Baseball. They thought it would be the end of civilization. Turns out, it wasn't.

I agree that allowing a Black guy to play baseball did not end civilization.

All the time you've been asking me to argue, you haven't laid out one argument for what to do with Trans people in your precious sporting events, other than "Canadian Rugby Player!"

I believe I have addressed every single sentence you have laid out so far. If I have missed anything, please bring it to my attention. If I haven't missed anything, please don't whine that I'm not making arguments that I have not been asked to make.

Your entire point seems to be "Conserve the Status Quo".

Nope! I'm against restricting a right that I hold dear to other humans.
Like gay marriage. I'm not gay, but I would find it evil to restrict marriage to a person that was homosexual. Sports is not the same, because of the biological differences that will forever protect men's sports from being taken over by biological women. Why do biological men get such a protection naturally, but women don't and you seem to actively want to not protect biological women when it comes to their ability to compete in sports. I find this confusing, but perhaps I'm missing something.

[boatsnguitars]

What's the biggest difference between men and women? Their genitalia, not much else.

[Clownboat]

What's the biggest difference between men and women? Their genitalia, not much else.

As I keep saying, it is only you that is obsessed with genitalia. You then project that on to me and it would be nice if you would cease and desist.

When it comes to MMA or powerlifting for example, please tell me that you understand that genitalia would not be a factor, but the biological differences between biological men and biological women would be.
The biological differences are the very reason that biological woman are incapable of competing in men's sports (see the NBA where there is no rule to not allow women to play), yet biological men are setting records when they compete against biological women.

I personally don't think it is OK to restrict biological women from competing against other biological women and the more biological men that are allowed to compete against biological women will restrict their access to compete. But you want to make this about wieners for some reason.

Biological men are protected from biological women taking over their sports. Biological women have no such a protection. No politics or genitalia are involved while I make note of this.
So once again... why is it that biological women taking over men's sports is a non issue? I think we all know the answer to this and it has nothing to do with genitalia like you continue to insists in place of answering the question which I think will expose your position.

The differences are real. So real in fact that thousands of years from now, if archeologists were to dig up the rugby players bones, they would understand it to be the skeleton of a biological male. I can't just pretend that this is untrue.

[boatsnguitars]

What's the biggest difference between men and women? Their genitalia, not much else.

As I keep saying, it is only you that is obsessed with genitalia. You then project that on to me and it would be nice if you would cease and desist.

When it comes to MMA or powerlifting for example, please tell me that you understand that genitalia would not be a factor, but the biological differences between biological men and biological women would be.
The biological differences are the very reason that biological woman are incapable of competing in men's sports (see the NBA where there is no rule to not allow women to play), yet biological men are setting records when they compete against biological women.

I personally don't think it is OK to restrict biological women from competing against other biological women and the more biological men that are allowed to compete against biological women will restrict their access to compete. But you want to make this about wieners for some reason.

Biological men are protected from biological women taking over their sports. Biological women have no such a protection. No politics or genitalia are involved while I make note of this.
So once again... why is it that biological women taking over men's sports is a non issue? I think we all know the answer to this and it has nothing to do with genitalia like you continue to insists in place of answering the question which I think will expose your position.

The differences are real. So real in fact that thousands of years from now, if archeologists were to dig up the rugby players bones, they would understand it to be the skeleton of a biological male. I can't just pretend that this is untrue.

I'm struggling to see what your upshot is.
I agree there are differences between men and women. Those differences in strength, height, size, etc. are small, and only the 'tails of the bell curve' are the exceptions. The difference is in their percieved gender and their genitalia. You keep focusing on the average overall weights, etc. not that 80% of people generally fall within the same group.
If I said a CEO was 5'10" tall - you'd have no idea if it was a man or a woman.

So, what does this have do with a person who feels they are a woman, but born with male genitalia, and want to get the appropriate blockers or surgery? Because they can't win a power lifting competition, they aren't allowed to make the change? What's your point?

And, I get that some of our entertainment includes inflicting brutal injury on the participants, and that the weaker participants will probably get the worse of it. Wide receivers, kickers, RB's and DB's are usually much smaller than the people responsible for tackling them. Boxing is divided by weight classes, etc. - there are basic rules that mitigate the injury of these different sizes. But that's entertainment - the rules aren't objectively dictated by the Universe. They are man-made.
There is no reason to separate them by genitalia (since we've established that women can be stronger than many men). Perhaps the larger question is why we have blood sports to begin with.
After all, if two guys or a guy and a girl want to fight each other - they can. The difference is that you seem to suggest that the Trans movement will make it impossible for the WWF or whatever, make up the rules for their silly games. They could say you can only fight if your name is Stu, for all I care.

Again, this seems to have nothing to do with the larger Trans discussion.

I am sympathetic to Trans women in women's sports, yet, as I have made clear, sport rules are arbitrary and sports in general are meaningless to society. Whatever the rules are, fine. But this discussion should be separate from the larger Trans issues.

As for women taking over men's sports. There are social reasons. However, Mia Hamm or Megan Rapinoe could easily play on many a men's soccer team. Clearly, there are differences at the edge of the bell curve - but again, you seem so focused on the importance of Sports being "pure". But it's an artifice.

Imagine there are no sports: what difference would it make to you whether a person was a man, woman, or whatever might be a new sex in the future? Can't a man cut hair or be a nurse? Can't a woman weld metal or design a building?

So, the outcry about Trans people seems to be summed up thusly:
1. A girl who wants to be a boy can't win a powerlifting competition, so she shouldn't be allowed to change her gender.
2. Bigger people tend to hurt smaller people, so size differences shouldn't be allowed - therefore a person born a boy shouldn't be allowed to be a girl.
3. Women don't infiltrate men's sport, therefore, a person born a boy shouldn't be allowed to be a girl.
4. Sports are brutal and their rules are set in stone - so we can't allow people to be Trans.
5. "I don't agree with Trans, because of sports, therefore, changing a child's gender is evil - despite my ignorance on the specific case."

[Clownboat]

I'm struggling to see what your upshot is.

You haven't been asking, that is why. Again, I'm pretty sure I have responded to every single line of inquiry and again, if I missed something, feel free to bring it to my attention.

I agree there are differences between men and women.

Do you agree that they are so different, that no biological women has ever had the ability to compete in the NBA against biological men? There is no rule that disallows women to make millions of dollars in the NBA. So why don't women do it?

Those differences in strength, height, size, etc. are small, and only the 'tails of the bell curve' are the exceptions.

The differences are not small. Again, the fact that no women has made millions of dollars playing in the NBA is evidence. Surely you are not going to argue that biological woman hate making millions of dollars, right? Therefore the biological differences are what is left.

The difference is in their percieved gender and their genitalia. You keep focusing on the average overall weights, etc. not that 80% of people generally fall within the same group.
If I said a CEO was 5'10" tall - you'd have no idea if it was a man or a woman.

Correct, because biological women can compete with biological men in this arena. However, biological differences is what restricts biological women from playing in the NBA.

So, what does this have do with a person who feels they are a woman, but born with male genitalia, and want to get the appropriate blockers or surgery? Because they can't win a power lifting competition, they aren't allowed to make the change? What's your point?

My point is simple and I'm astonished you continue to miss it. I'm looking to protect biological women from having to compete against biological men when the arenas are not level. I don't see why a women couldn't be a CEO, but I do understand why no women in history has been able to compete in the NBA. Therefore we have the WNBA and I believe those women should be protected from competing against biological men.

And, I get that some of our entertainment includes inflicting brutal injury on the participants, and that the weaker participants will probably get the worse of it. Wide receivers, kickers, RB's and DB's are usually much smaller than the people responsible for tackling them. Boxing is divided by weight classes, etc. - there are basic rules that mitigate the injury of these different sizes. But that's entertainment - the rules aren't objectively dictated by the Universe. They are man-made.

I never once argued that the rules are objective and dictated by the universe nor that they are not man made. I shouldn't have to clarify this though IMO.

There is no reason to separate them by genitalia (since we've established that women can be stronger than many men).

Why can't you stop focusing on genitalia? We separate due to biological differences not the gear between the legs. Not having a wiener plays zero part in the fact that biological women cannot compete against biological men when it comes to the NBA for just one example.

Perhaps the larger question is why we have blood sports to begin with.

Please start a thread if you would like to discuss this.

The difference is that you seem to suggest that the Trans movement will make it impossible for the WWF or whatever, make up the rules for their silly games. They could say you can only fight if your name is Stu, for all I care.

I'm honestly lost about what the World Wildlife Fund has to do with our discussion or what silly rules they might have. Can you clarify?

Again, this seems to have nothing to do with the larger Trans discussion.

Well, you did go off on blood sports and now the World Wildlife Fund. I also do not see what they have to do with the larger Trans discussion.

I am sympathetic to Trans women in women's sports, yet, as I have made clear, sport rules are arbitrary and sports in general are meaningless to society. Whatever the rules are, fine. But this discussion should be separate from the larger Trans issues.

I'm ok if people want to be Trans, so nothing really for me to discuss. Therefore what is left that I am discussing is protecting biological women from competing against biological men.
Every single person reading here I believe understands why I'm not out to protect biological men from having to compete against biological women in competitive sports.

Why is it not necessary to protect biological men from competing against biological women in sports? Why is only the inverse an issue? It's because of the biological differences that you seem to want to pretend aren't there, but are.

As for women taking over men's sports. There are social reasons.

Women being unable to compete in the NBA has nothing to do with social reasons. The reasons are biological.

However, Mia Hamm or Megan Rapinoe could easily play on many a men's soccer team.

Serena Williams Lost to 203rd-Ranked Man in Tennis

FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage
The team is composed mostly of 14 year old boys.

Be honest now please. Take the Men's National team and put them up against the best 14-15 year old biological girls that you can find and guess the results. The results make my point for me.

Clearly, there are differences at the edge of the bell curve - but again, you seem so focused on the importance of Sports being "pure". But it's an artifice.

Grrrrrrrrrrr. I'm out to protect biological women from having to compete against biological men (high level sports as I see no issue with people that choose to play coed sports), wanting to keep sports pure, whatever you mean by that does not come in to play.

Imagine there are no sports: what difference would it make to you whether a person was a man, woman, or whatever might be a new sex in the future?

Probably very little, but I am discussing sports specifically here.

Can't a man cut hair or be a nurse? Can't a woman weld metal or design a building?

Yes, yes they can.

So, the outcry about Trans people seems to be summed up thusly:
1. A girl who wants to be a boy can't win a powerlifting competition, so she shouldn't be allowed to change her gender.
2. Bigger people tend to hurt smaller people, so size differences shouldn't be allowed - therefore a person born a boy shouldn't be allowed to be a girl.
3. Women don't infiltrate men's sport, therefore, a person born a boy shouldn't be allowed to be a girl.
4. Sports are brutal and their rules are set in stone - so we can't allow people to be Trans.
5. "I don't agree with Trans, because of sports, therefore, changing a child's gender is evil - despite my ignorance on the specific case."

I reject your claimed outcries.
There is a reason that women cannot and will not take over men's sports. There is a reason that biological men should not be allowed to take over biological women's sports.
These reasons are real and they are biological and will not go away no matter how wrong you are about what you think the outcry is. You're talking right past me with your genital talk and now these outcries as I'm trying to be very specific about what I'm out to protect. I'm open to you showing me that there is no issue allowing biological men to compete against biological women when it comes to sports if your up to it.

[boatsnguitars]

I'm ok if people want to be Trans, so nothing really for me to discuss. Therefore what is left that I am discussing is protecting biological women from competing against biological men.
Every single person reading here I believe understands why I'm not out to protect biological men from having to compete against biological women in competitive sports.

Fair enough. As I said, i'm sympathetic to this. Since your issue isn't that people become Trans, as others have said, I will address this part of the discussion.

As the rules are now, women's sports needs some protection as society works out the guard rails and guidelines. To some extent, this is what Swimming has done, and others. They are creating some way to measure, but as we have seen it's flawed (e.g., simply measuring testosterone).

As Trans becomes more common and accepted we do need to reconsider how we look at the issue, societally, that makes sense across all sports.

I still think you are in error to ask "why don't women play in the NBA" - professional sports are specifically the bell curve tail. They attract the most exceptional 'specimins' of the human species. Why don't women play in the NBA? Most men can't play in the NBA! The fact that it's a sport that highlights specific male traits, and then only selects for the most exceptional of those traits is exactly the reason. They massaged the rules of the game to continue to favor men playing in the NBA" height, jumping, upper body strength, etc. If the NBA said you couldn't jump, or couldn't push, you might see a different sport.

The question you ask is answered by the social pressures that make sports refine the rules to favor things that other people can't do as well. There are also normal social pressures: Why by 120th in the NBA when you can be #3 in the WNBA? It's why a lot of men move overseas and out of the NBA.

So, I agree there are differences. Those differences - as we agree - have nothing to do with the general Trans discussion. However, they are clearly highlighted in the way sports are structured. We created sports - other thousands of years - to favor the physically gifted in strictly male terms. It's ingrained that we want people to jump farther, run faster, hit harder, etc. Why? Because that's what we've programmed ourselves to enjoy over thousands of years.

For example, here is - on average - what women do better than men:

Learning
Though women may not necessarily be smarter than their male counterparts, it seems they are inherently better learners, according to a study released by the University of Georgia and Columbia University. Research showed that girls performed better than boys due to their approach toward learning – factoring in such things as attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, flexibility and organization.

Multitasking
This one may not be as shocking, but in case there was any doubt, the University of Glasgow released scientific evidence proving women are, in fact, better multitaskers than men. The test required participants to devise a plan to find lost keys while simultaneously answering random trivia questions over the phone.
“This one significant advantage for women on the key search task suggests that they may be superior at tasks requiring high-level cognitive control, particularly planning, monitoring and inhibition,” said Keith Laws, professor of cognitive neuropsychology at the University of Hertfordshire and one of the authors of the study.

Dealing with pain
For the sake of humanity, perhaps we should be grateful it’s women and not men who are tasked with the role of childbearing. When it comes to pain tolerance, "MythBusters" put the sexes to the test, and women pulled off a painful victory. Participants, unaware they were competing against the opposite sex, were challenged to hold their arms in a bucket of ice-cold water, with the women averaging 16.1 seconds longer than the men.

Staying healthy
You can blame the “man cold” on a genetic advantage women have over men — their immune systems are stronger. According to a study by researchers at McGill University, this can be attributed to the fact that estrogen blocks the production of a certain enzyme that causes inflammation.

Investing
Though many women expressed doubt in their abilities to make wise investments, Fidelity Investments released a survey showing that they tended to outperform men when it came to generating a return on their investments. Why? While men tended to be overconfident in their trading abilities, the more conservative approach most women took resulted in a higher investment over time, according to a Berkeley's Haas School of Business study.

Competing in endurance sports
Once upon a time, playing sports “like a girl” was considered an insult, but science has proven otherwise. A study by the NRC Research Press found that upon finishing a challenging endurance sport, “females exhibited smaller reductions in power and similar changes in the rate of neuromuscular activation than males, indicating females were less fatigable than males.”
Simply put: A woman's body handled endurance sports better than a man's body did.

Living longer
Not only do women’s bodies handle endurance better than men, but they’ve also excelled in the ultimate endurance sport: life. It’s a good thing women are better investors because they are outliving men in nearly every part of the world, according to statistics released by the World Health Organization. Perhaps that inflammation-fighting estrogen plays a role as well?

Now, in terms of value to the advancement of the species, these are great traits, but we don't have professional sports that honor these things. We honor risk-taking, and things that damage the body. We want to see blood, broken bones, etc. (as a society).
Think of how we admire race car drivers, extreme sports, American Football, Hockey (with the fights), etc.

However, long distance running is considered a B-List sport. It's just not what we consider "manly".