When is a sex offender not a sex offender?

[woodturner]

Bwahahahahaha, hilarious.

You can laugh at me all you want, but that doesn't make you correct in your statements.

Absolutely not "pop science."

You are certainly entitled to your opinions.

Let's not play games.

Not sure why you are playing games, but I'm not wasting the time researching references to a few hundred research papers you could easily find yourself if you were willing to spend the effort, especially if you aren't going to even try to read them.

You missed my point entirely. Those that would like to insist there are no differences between the sexes (that is, you) do so for a variety of political (non-scientific) reasons.

I got your point - I just noted that it was considered misogynistic in the scientific community, and that I (and science) disagree with your opinion that there are the kind of differences you claim.

You said I was misogynistic in saying men are physically stronger than women. Statements of fact are never misogynistic. As an engineer, attorney, and professor, you should know that.

See, that's the thing - you believe your opinions are fact, and that a statement of fact cannot be misogynistic. I disagree with both opinions.

May be best to "agree to disagree" at this point - doesn't sound like you are very interested in learning more about this, and that's fine. I'm not a big fan of doing the Samuel Johnson thing anyway.

[Alex Franke]

Good grief, guys! I came to this thread for a cheerful, lighthearted discussion about sex offenders, and now I have to go pop some popcorn to be ready for the next volley!

Seriously, though, I would answer the question in the subject like this: "When he or she has not been convicted of such an offense." It's really a shame when just an accusation can be so damaging... I think the media jumps the gun a lot on things like this.

[JimD]

Testosterone, which males have more of than females, encourages muscle growth. There may be no difference in the strength of out-of-shape middle aged people of both sexes that weigh the same. But if the same size male and female are active enough to build muscle mass, the male will build more. All one has to do is to look at female and male muscle builders. Who is more developed?

The problem with stating general things about the sexes is we want to apply it to individuals where it may not be true. It is true that males tend to be physically stronger than females. But that does not mean that if we have two applicants for a physically demanding job, one male and one female, the male is better suited. We have to consider the individuals and not some tendency of the sexes.

Males are both physically larger and for their size physically stronger. To maintain the difference into middle age, males need to exercise more than they did when they were younger and more than many of them do.

Jim

[cgallery]

I'm not wasting the time researching references to a few hundred research papers you could easily find yourself if you were willing to spend the effort, especially if you aren't going to even try to read them.

Don't need hundreds. Just one or two links to an abstract or full article you find on-line that backs up your assertion that men and women are equal when it comes to physical strength. Or that sexual differentiation is somehow pop science.

I just noted that it was considered misogynistic in the scientific community, and that I (and science) disagree with your opinion that there are the kind of differences you claim.

No it's not. Show me one link from any recognized research university or organization that backs that statement up.

See, that's the thing - you believe your opinions are fact, and that a statement of fact cannot be misogynistic. I disagree with both opinions.

I can't help you if you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions.

May be best to "agree to disagree" at this point - doesn't sound like you are very interested in learning more about this, and that's fine. I'm not a big fan of doing the Samuel Johnson thing anyway.

That seems to be your canned answer when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

Just show me the link(s).

[cgallery]

Testosterone, which males have more of than females, encourages muscle growth.

Males also begin with higher bone density (http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/opmale.html) and greater lung capacity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391086/).

They're also (on average, we're talking averages here, no individual cases) several inches taller than females.

Finally, I'm not claiming men are superior to women. Stronger, yes. Superior, absolutely not.

[woodturner]

Testosterone, which males have more of than females, encourages muscle growth. ...But if the same size male and female are active enough to build muscle mass, the male will build more. All one has to do is to look at female and male muscle builders. Who is more developed?

The objective answer is, it depends.

The problem or challenge is that people are individually unique. While it may be GENERALLY true that males have more testosterone than females, it is not UNIVERSALLY true. For example, as men age, testosterone production declines, while it increases in women as they age. One effect of testosterone is libido - which one reason why middle age women often have higher libido than middle age men, and sometimes higher libido than younger men. It also accounts for the growth of facial hair in older women, with the proverbial "bearded lady" being the extreme example.

In addition, "development" differs from strength. Caucasian men do tend to develop bulkier muscles, but others can develop the same level of strength with muscle tissue that is less bulky.

[BrazosJake]

What is most difficult is - asking the right questions and saying the right things in such cases. The legal phrase that begins with "Objection", and the following words "leading the witness" applies to children especially. "Leading" is very relevant in forming perceptions and eliciting wrong answers - especially in children.

Very true. Virtually EVERY one of the high-profile child sex abuse witch trials covered by the National media during the 1980s have been proven bogus. Most were perpetrated by politically-ambitious prosecutors on the "children don't lie" basis. Oh, really? And especially not when an adult keeps asking the same question, they're quite capable of figuring out what the adult wants them to say.

[woodturner]

I can't help you if you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions.

Exactly MY point - we can't have a productive conversation if you don't accept that your "facts" are really opinions.

That seems to be your canned answer when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

Hard to say, since no "overwhelming evidence", to cite your opinion, has been posted.

Show me one link from any recognized research university or organization that backs that statement up.

When a position is broadly accepted within a field, "everyone knows" and it need not be specifically referenced. Thus you won't find the link that you seek - or a link that supports the contrary position you hold. It's simply not a topic of discussion or debate, since those in the field know and accept that guideline.

I'm not interested in arguing or fighting with you or anyone else. I'm interested in stimulating and productive discussion, but you seem to want to fight. When you dismiss objective facts and research that contradict your opinions, it seems pointless to try to have a discussion.

If you want to read, digest, and understand the following papers, then we could discuss the specifics of this research. Each paper listed below supports a theory contrary to the positions stated in other posts in this thread.

Be aware that there is something of a "political agenda" in certain corners of the scientific world, among some researchers. There are those who wish to show that behavioral aspects are not a result of environment or learning but rather "innate". If that could be shown, then a logical extension of that work could support the assertion that sexual orientation has genetic rather than environmental origins. Reaching that conclusion is of great interest to certain segments of the research community. To date, most research supports that essentially all behaviors such as orientation are learned rather than innate.

In addition, researchers explore different options, theories and avenues, some contradicting others, until ultimately a general theory is found and becomes accepted. An example is the mid-70's work that Time cited, which did not sufficiently explore or control the environment for the study. It was good work at the time, but testing standards have improved and refined since that time.

Influence of puberty on muscle development at the forearm
C M Neu, F Rauch, J Rittweger, F Manz, E Schoenau. American Journal of Physiology : Endocrinology and metabolism. Bethesda: Jul 2002. Vol. 46, Iss. 1; pg. E103

Brain-based sex differences in parenting propagate emotion expression
James E Swain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Cambridge: Oct 2009. Vol. 32, Iss. 5; pg. 401, 54 pgs

Improved cognitive and motor development in a community-based intervention of psychosocial stimulation in northeast Brazil
Sophie H Eickmann, Ana C V Lima, Miriam Q Guerra, Marilia C Lima, et al. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. London: Aug 2003. Vol. 45, Iss. 8; pg. 536

The newborn infant, capable and vulnerable: An interactional perspective
by Lundqvist-Persson, Cristina, Ph.D., Lunds Universitet (Sweden), 2000; AAT C804361

Perinatal predictors of cognitive competence at age four
by Goldberg, Deborah Cole, Ph.D., University of Florida, 1987 , 83 pages; AAT 8809641

[cgallery]

Be aware that there is something of a "political agenda" in certain corners of the scientific world, among some researchers. There are those who wish to show that behavioral aspects are not a result of environment or learning but rather "innate". If that could be shown, then a logical extension of that work could support the assertion that sexual orientation has genetic rather than environmental origins. Reaching that conclusion is of great interest to certain segments of the research community. To date, most research supports that essentially all behaviors such as orientation are learned rather than innate.

Ahhhh, now we're getting somewhere.

I see where you're coming from and I respect your religious beliefs.

But I must follow the prime directive and refrain from discussing matters related to religion.

[ironhat]

Not to change this august conversation from the philosophical/ socio-legal tact but, I have always thought that once a person was exonerated that the newspapers ususally relegated such to the inner pages - at best, inside front page. Regarding the television and radio you would be lucky to receive a nod. I have thought that the exoneration should receive a bold subject head, longer article stating the reason for such decision and using names of the accusers, unless minors of course.
And now, back to our regular discussion.

[jussi]

I got your point - I just noted that it was considered misogynistic in the scientific community, and that I (and science) disagree with your opinion that there are the kind of differences you claim.

Don't have a dog in the fight but I'm always weary when people speak for the entire scientific community. Much less science in general. Can't we all just agree to disagree.

[cabinetman]

A lot of people are surprised to learn that there is no inherent physiological strength difference between men and women.

Did you conduct your own poll? What does that mean..."a lot of people"? That's not true...everyone knows that. Do I need to provide some documentation...I don't think so. It's common knowledge that you may not be aware of. You may be of slight build and over the years determined that the opposite sex was equal to your physical strength. Or, you were equal physically to the women in your life. Or in viewing the female anatomy decided there was no obvious muscular development different than yours. So your above statement may be true for the middle of the road, you know, the males and females that compare equally.

Exactly MY point - we can't have a productive conversation if you don't accept that your "facts" are really opinions.

Hard to say, since no "overwhelming evidence", to cite your opinion, has been posted.

When a position is broadly accepted within a field, "everyone knows" and it need not be specifically referenced. Thus you won't find the link that you seek - or a link that supports the contrary position you hold. It's simply not a topic of discussion or debate, since those in the field know and accept that guideline.

I'm not interested in arguing or fighting with you or anyone else. I'm interested in stimulating and productive discussion, but you seem to want to fight. When you dismiss objective facts and research that contradict your opinions, it seems pointless to try to have a discussion.

Semantics.
.

[woodturner]

I see where you're coming from and I respect your religious beliefs.

Sorry, I made no reference to religious beliefs, stated or implied.

Did you read the post? Did you read the papers? Seems to be your standard response to change the topic or go off on a tangent when faced with "overwhelming evidence" that conflicts with your opinions

I have no "horse to ride" in this "race", other than objective science. Reality is what it is, truth is what it is. My task as a scientist is to discern and report that truth, regardless of whether it coincides with my opinions or not. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

There is a reason scientists use the terms observation and theories, rather than facts and "truth".

[woodturner]

Originally Posted by woodturner
A lot of people are surprised to learn that there is no inherent physiological strength difference between men and women.


Did you conduct your own poll? What does that mean..."a lot of people"? That's not true...

What is it that you think is not true? Your post says that you think it's not true that people believe there is no physiological strength difference. Is that what you meant, or did you mean that it's not a lot of people that believe that there is no strength difference?

I simply reported published research. The research shows that there is no INHERENT physiological strength difference. Put another way, male infants are no stronger at birth than female infants. Differences in strength develop primarily as a result of differences in activity and environment.

This thread has shown that "a lot" of people hold views that conflict with the research. "A lot" is a vague term, which is why I chose it - I don't have hard numbers to say how many people believe that women are weaker than men. My subjective opinion is that it is "a lot", but that's just my opinion.

[BrazosJake]

A lot of people are surprised to learn that there is no inherent physiological strength difference between men and women.

I'd say more like everyone who accepts the truth, because that statement is simply false. Men on average possess twice the upper body strength of women, regardless of training.