Regarding sexual dimorphism in height the champions are the Gravettian culture of the european Upper Paleolithic with an average gap between sexes of 25.5 cm (10 inches). These people were an offshoot and an evolution of the Aurignacian culture which had replaced the Neanderthals.
From wiki:
"Physical remains of people of the Gravettian have revealed that they were tall and relatively slender people. The male height of the Gravettian culture ranged between 179 and 188 centimetres (5 ft 10 in and 6 ft 2 in) tall with an average of 183.5 centimetres (6 ft 0.2 in), which is exceptionally tall not only for that period of prehistory, but for all periods of history.
They were fairly slender and normally weighed between 67–73 kilograms (148–161 lb), although they would likely have had a higher ratio of lean muscle mass compared to body fat in comparison to modern humans as a result of a very physically active and demanding lifestyle. The females of the Gravettian were much shorter, standing 158 centimetres (5 ft 2 in) on average, with an average weight of 54 kilograms (119 lb)."
The Gravettian culture existed for some 11 millenia during which Europe was in an Ice Age. Given that they hunted the giant Pleistocene megafauna in the mammoth tundra presumably women didn't contribute much to hunting so maybe this resulted in extreme occupational and height sexual dimorphism. Maybe if you hunt mammoths with javelins and try to stay out of the jaws of scimitar cats and cave lions it makes sense to have tall skinny men like modern Nilotics ( the Maasai) and small women that need less food because they don't stray far from the camp.
Also of note is that there is genetic and cultural continuity in Europe between Aurignacian culture and Western Hunter-Gatherers (the Cro-Magnon peoples) for some 40 000 years and of course WHG are part of the ancestry of modern europeans (and of the ancestry of EEHG which are also ancestral to europeans) so a higher degree of height sexual dimorphism in modern europeans is not surprising.
Besides a likely predominant advantage of small females for caloric conservation, the smaller hands may have facilitated fine motor skills for foraging small items (berries and seeds) and for fabricating clothing and other necessities. My dentist is a very small woman with small hands. Her dental work is deft compared to that of her larger technicians.
And thanks for turning the speculation toward specific functional links between height dimorphism and egalitarianism.
This article is about sex (male and female) and not gender (masculine and feminine). Wokespeak is spurious propaganda that the cognoscenti have a duty to eschew scrupulously.
Ok but that is the standard name for this phenomenon so obviously I have to use it if I want people to know what I am talking about and find it by searching.
"Gender" has been used as a synonym for 'sex' for centuries. If anything is wokespeak, it's limiting the word to only be used in line with neofeminist gender theory.
"gender, n., is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine g., meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder."
A DICTIONARY OF MODERN ENGLISH USAGE, H. W. FOWLER, SECOND EDITION, 1926
I have a personal working hypothesis that what we now term "sex" and "gender" can be divided into two distinct attributes: "sex" equating to purely physical attributes; and "gender" relating to behaviors (including appearance enhancement) commonly associated with each of the two sexes.
Therefore, gender is founded in culture while sex is founded in biology.
If accurate (who knows?) we could expect there to be specific differences in aspects of gender for each culture. But it seems that many/most cultures share a core set of gender behaviors that are probably related to sexual differences, and there is variance in a smaller set of gender behaviors that are less directly related to biological (sexual) differences.
Now, the reason that "sex" and "gender" were synonymous, or more nearly so, is that in most major cultures there was a division of social role based on sexual differences, and adherence to these roles (behaviors...i.e., "gender") was fairly uniform, and so the terms themselves became de facto synonymous to the point that there was no real distinction.
Since industrialization, the roles have become less important to survival, with the *ability* for either sex to perform survival tasks (in industrialized societies, this may simply be showing up on time to work in a factory or office) interchangeably, and so individuals of either sex could now adopt gender behaviors that previously may have led to reproductive hardship.
So the last thing to fall into place was, after survival roles became interchangeable, whether each society or culture accepted the individual's fluid choice of role (gender presentation). And in the industrialized cultures, there is much more tolerance than even 20 years ago, so that we see gender/sex mismatches more commonly, and because of this, the terms "sex" and "gender" now can functionally refer to different attributes.
Gender more specifically means the sex kinds; whereas sex can also mean the act, so people also tend to prefer avoiding the indecency.
“1. Properly, kind; sort.
2. A sex, male or female. Hence,
3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives and participles, to express the distinction of male and female.”
Countries or groups that have high sexual dimorphism have a lower fertility rate, which means that if we consider humanity as a whole and not just one group (Europeans), this sexual dimorphism in humans is decreasing. .
I remember you quipped to feminists somewhere that height dimorphism is increasing among Whites, this argument is wrong because Whites also have the lowest fertility rates while Africans...
If we look at it from a feminist point of view, now biological evolution has become a feminist lol
I don't agree, saying that gender inequality is biologically rooted but not saying the second part (reducing it in modern humans) doesn't make sense, only mentioning the first part might only be of interest to your right wing followers.
We (as your leftist followers) also have some expectations from you, Emil.
No, you are just being retarded. Sexual dimorphism is K selected so that's kinda expected, high fertility rate isn't always a good thing, ideally it will be above replacement but not excessively... so like Nigeria.
My ignorant boy, The slow life strategy is a loser strategy in the modern world because infant mortality rates are very low even in underdeveloped countries, so they will maintain their population size advantage anyway.
At the same time, taking into account the migration of Middle Easterners and North Africans to Europe, sexual dimorphism (unfortunately also intelligence) will also decrease with population replacement in Europe.
Your chances of escaping from this scenario are close to 0.
"...sexual dimorphism is larger in the more developed ones. No doubt, these will also be the ones with higher scores on the various sex egalitarianism scales, as most of the highly developed countries are inhabited mainly by Europeans."
...but not for long. They're rapidly filling up with non-Europeans who will tip the scales - and the genetics..
Has anybody noticed varying sex differences between countries in athletic events?
I did a lot of work on Olympic running events by sex in 1997. Back then, there weren't as many East African women medalists in distance running events as East African men. I attributed that to culture, and indeed, East African women now do very well in distance running.
Overall, I think the race differences in track are a little smaller among women than among men, although that's my non-quantitative impression.
Height ratio in developing countries could be affected by male preference resulting in more food for them growing up.
Looking at US data for 20-39 year olds, whites and blacks have a sex height ratio of around 1.08 while the shorter Asians and Mexicans are around 1.09. Sample sizes of a few hundred per group:
Regarding sexual dimorphism in height the champions are the Gravettian culture of the european Upper Paleolithic with an average gap between sexes of 25.5 cm (10 inches). These people were an offshoot and an evolution of the Aurignacian culture which had replaced the Neanderthals.
From wiki:
"Physical remains of people of the Gravettian have revealed that they were tall and relatively slender people. The male height of the Gravettian culture ranged between 179 and 188 centimetres (5 ft 10 in and 6 ft 2 in) tall with an average of 183.5 centimetres (6 ft 0.2 in), which is exceptionally tall not only for that period of prehistory, but for all periods of history.
They were fairly slender and normally weighed between 67–73 kilograms (148–161 lb), although they would likely have had a higher ratio of lean muscle mass compared to body fat in comparison to modern humans as a result of a very physically active and demanding lifestyle. The females of the Gravettian were much shorter, standing 158 centimetres (5 ft 2 in) on average, with an average weight of 54 kilograms (119 lb)."
The Gravettian culture existed for some 11 millenia during which Europe was in an Ice Age. Given that they hunted the giant Pleistocene megafauna in the mammoth tundra presumably women didn't contribute much to hunting so maybe this resulted in extreme occupational and height sexual dimorphism. Maybe if you hunt mammoths with javelins and try to stay out of the jaws of scimitar cats and cave lions it makes sense to have tall skinny men like modern Nilotics ( the Maasai) and small women that need less food because they don't stray far from the camp.
Also of note is that there is genetic and cultural continuity in Europe between Aurignacian culture and Western Hunter-Gatherers (the Cro-Magnon peoples) for some 40 000 years and of course WHG are part of the ancestry of modern europeans (and of the ancestry of EEHG which are also ancestral to europeans) so a higher degree of height sexual dimorphism in modern europeans is not surprising.
Besides a likely predominant advantage of small females for caloric conservation, the smaller hands may have facilitated fine motor skills for foraging small items (berries and seeds) and for fabricating clothing and other necessities. My dentist is a very small woman with small hands. Her dental work is deft compared to that of her larger technicians.
And thanks for turning the speculation toward specific functional links between height dimorphism and egalitarianism.
"The gender equality 'paradox' and genetics"
This article is about sex (male and female) and not gender (masculine and feminine). Wokespeak is spurious propaganda that the cognoscenti have a duty to eschew scrupulously.
Ok but that is the standard name for this phenomenon so obviously I have to use it if I want people to know what I am talking about and find it by searching.
Good point. Then perhaps use scare quotation marks: "gender"?
"Gender" has been used as a synonym for 'sex' for centuries. If anything is wokespeak, it's limiting the word to only be used in line with neofeminist gender theory.
"gender, n., is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine g., meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder."
A DICTIONARY OF MODERN ENGLISH USAGE, H. W. FOWLER, SECOND EDITION, 1926
Referring to a usage that's been established for half a millennium as a blunder seems kinda retarded tbh.
I have a personal working hypothesis that what we now term "sex" and "gender" can be divided into two distinct attributes: "sex" equating to purely physical attributes; and "gender" relating to behaviors (including appearance enhancement) commonly associated with each of the two sexes.
Therefore, gender is founded in culture while sex is founded in biology.
If accurate (who knows?) we could expect there to be specific differences in aspects of gender for each culture. But it seems that many/most cultures share a core set of gender behaviors that are probably related to sexual differences, and there is variance in a smaller set of gender behaviors that are less directly related to biological (sexual) differences.
Now, the reason that "sex" and "gender" were synonymous, or more nearly so, is that in most major cultures there was a division of social role based on sexual differences, and adherence to these roles (behaviors...i.e., "gender") was fairly uniform, and so the terms themselves became de facto synonymous to the point that there was no real distinction.
Since industrialization, the roles have become less important to survival, with the *ability* for either sex to perform survival tasks (in industrialized societies, this may simply be showing up on time to work in a factory or office) interchangeably, and so individuals of either sex could now adopt gender behaviors that previously may have led to reproductive hardship.
So the last thing to fall into place was, after survival roles became interchangeable, whether each society or culture accepted the individual's fluid choice of role (gender presentation). And in the industrialized cultures, there is much more tolerance than even 20 years ago, so that we see gender/sex mismatches more commonly, and because of this, the terms "sex" and "gender" now can functionally refer to different attributes.
Anyway, that's how it looks to me.
Gender more specifically means the sex kinds; whereas sex can also mean the act, so people also tend to prefer avoiding the indecency.
“1. Properly, kind; sort.
2. A sex, male or female. Hence,
3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives and participles, to express the distinction of male and female.”
- Webster’s 1828
As a term in Wokespeak, "gender" is used to obscure the reality, or at least importance, of biological sex. As such, it is best resisted.
This data highlights another thing.
Countries or groups that have high sexual dimorphism have a lower fertility rate, which means that if we consider humanity as a whole and not just one group (Europeans), this sexual dimorphism in humans is decreasing. .
I remember you quipped to feminists somewhere that height dimorphism is increasing among Whites, this argument is wrong because Whites also have the lowest fertility rates while Africans...
If we look at it from a feminist point of view, now biological evolution has become a feminist lol
Ok but this post isn't the place to complain about that stuff.
I don't agree, saying that gender inequality is biologically rooted but not saying the second part (reducing it in modern humans) doesn't make sense, only mentioning the first part might only be of interest to your right wing followers.
We (as your leftist followers) also have some expectations from you, Emil.
No, you are just being retarded. Sexual dimorphism is K selected so that's kinda expected, high fertility rate isn't always a good thing, ideally it will be above replacement but not excessively... so like Nigeria.
My ignorant boy, The slow life strategy is a loser strategy in the modern world because infant mortality rates are very low even in underdeveloped countries, so they will maintain their population size advantage anyway.
At the same time, taking into account the migration of Middle Easterners and North Africans to Europe, sexual dimorphism (unfortunately also intelligence) will also decrease with population replacement in Europe.
Your chances of escaping from this scenario are close to 0.
Fertility rates of third world immigrants converge on natives in two generations max.
And fertility rates have been dropping in the third world too, and fertility rate correlates with infant mortality.
Your chances of escaping from this scenario are EXACTLY 0.
Or the less harsh an environment is, the heritability of traits increases. Isn't that the de facto HBD position?
"...sexual dimorphism is larger in the more developed ones. No doubt, these will also be the ones with higher scores on the various sex egalitarianism scales, as most of the highly developed countries are inhabited mainly by Europeans."
...but not for long. They're rapidly filling up with non-Europeans who will tip the scales - and the genetics..
Has anybody noticed varying sex differences between countries in athletic events?
I did a lot of work on Olympic running events by sex in 1997. Back then, there weren't as many East African women medalists in distance running events as East African men. I attributed that to culture, and indeed, East African women now do very well in distance running.
Overall, I think the race differences in track are a little smaller among women than among men, although that's my non-quantitative impression.
Height ratio in developing countries could be affected by male preference resulting in more food for them growing up.
Looking at US data for 20-39 year olds, whites and blacks have a sex height ratio of around 1.08 while the shorter Asians and Mexicans are around 1.09. Sample sizes of a few hundred per group:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-046-508.pdf
For 40-59 year olds the male ratio is roughly 1.086 for everyone except Mexicans at around 1.081
This age group is presumably more likely to be affected country of origin effects though.