Current Events > Sexual dimorphism is real

(+) Yeah! (+)

What middle-aged braindead mouthbreather is gonna argue that this isn't true?

True for other animals, but not for humans

can someone explain to me what this means?

Sexual dimorphism is traditionally viewed as extremely substantial differences between the male and female of a given species (ignoring literal genitalia and the like) that cannot be mistaken as potentially from the opposite gender. So something like "women are shorter than men on average" isn't sexual dimorphism unless *every* women is shorter than every man at a similar stage (so children could be the same height but as adults the height difference becomes relevant, or vice-versa). Thus as humans have no relevant distinctions between things not directly linked to explicitly sexual attributes a traditional approach to dimorphism would not apply.

Sexual dimorphism is traditionally viewed as extremely substantial differences between the male and female of a given species (ignoring literal genitalia and the like) that cannot be mistaken as potentially from the opposite gender. So something like "women are shorter than men on average" isn't sexual dimorphism unless *every* women is shorter than every man at a similar stage (so children could be the same height but as adults the height difference becomes relevant, or vice-versa). Thus as humans have no relevant distinctions between things not directly linked to explicitly sexual attributes a traditional approach to dimorphism would not apply.

ellis123
"Traditionally viewed" in what sense? Sexual dimorphism is "traditionally" a rather clinical term, the base understanding of which is going to be "It's why men and women look different" and the more technical approach generally being a list of hormone-related, typical differences. Where is this "absolutely no overlap is traditional view" coming from?

Pretty much no sex differences across any species follows this though. Pretty much every phenotype has many underlying genes contributing, and because of this becomes distributed, usually with overlap since organisms need to survive to reproduce.

What do you mean? Are you saying that almost every creature has dimorphism? Because that is correct: almost none are monogamous.

"Traditionally" in that conservatives get a huffy otherwise. Doubly-so since science is involved and it isn't just about "men are stronger."

Idk what monogamy has to do with it.

I'm just saying that what you wrote is a definition of sexual dimorphism that is so rigid as to be a strawman.

Why are you politicizing this?

can someone explain to me what this means?

Sexual dimorphism is the condition where the sexes of the same animal and/or plant species exhibit different morphological characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction, example:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/0/6/AAbzK0AAEAbC.jpg

no. I was asking about how it would not apply to humans.

It very much does. Hence my sarcastic reply earlier (that I feel I must have made not obvious enough). Putting it as an option is just "playing politics" for the people that think that humans are special snowflakes but aren't so daft as to forget basically every other animal exists/are entirely anti-science.

Traditionally" in that conservatives get a huffy otherwise.

It very much does. Hence my sarcastic reply earlier (that I feel I must have made not obvious enough). Putting it as an option is just "playing politics" for the people that think that humans are special snowflakes but aren't so daft as to forget basically every other animal exists/are entirely anti-science.

Gasoline smells great

The people that think it's transphobic to point out the difference between gender and sex. True, someone can point that out to be an impolite conservative jerk, but that's not the case all the time.