/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14741278]

Is biological sex determined at the moment of conception?

IE an egg can only carry an X chromosome, a sperm can carry an X or a Y.

Is the resulting blastocyst' sex determined at conception? If not, why not?

[Anonymous No.14741293]

>>14741278
yes, it is determined by the genetic makeup of the gametes.

there are rare cases where a gamete carries one chromosome but some other mutation which flips the phenotypical sex. for example androgen insensitivity disorder is a Y chromosome gamete but a mutation causes the phenotype to manifest as female. however, the mutation is encoded already in the genotypes of the gametes so the phenotypic sex is known as soon as one knows which gametes fertilize

[Anonymous No.14741330]

>>14741278
You have to put aside whatever conception of sex you have and see this from the material, morphological point of view.

X or Y chromosomes are sets of instructions. Tipically as you know double Xs will give you female sex, X and Y will give you male, double Y is incompatible with life.

When you have sex chromosome trisomies, you tend to get hypogonadism, genitals that don't work and are more or less indifferentiate. These tend to be written off as female because it's the closest they get to look like.

Similarly, tampering with hormonal function at the embryologic period will get you indifferentiated genitals. It's not a matter of sex, but a matter of malformation.

[Anonymous No.14741507]

>>14741278
It is determined by the sex chromosome carried in the sperm that fertilizes the egg. Interestingly enough, the mass of the x chromosome is heavier than that of the y chromosome. Therefore you can centrifuge and sample sperm by weight in order to choose sons or daughters.

[Anonymous No.14741518]

>>14741278
yes learn some basic science you fucktard. YWNBAW

[Anonymous No.14741594]

>>14741507
Western society should use this to become 70% female in order to solve the incel problem

[Anonymous No.14741726]

>>14741594
And women still won't want them.

[Anonymous No.14741734]

>>14741726
There may still be men who don't reproduce, but it will be an insignificant percentage compared to the situation that is taking place today with men in their 20s. If the culture starts to shift towards women putting more work into attracting a mate and valuing men more we can dial the gender ratio back a bit to be more balanced.

[Anonymous No.14741741]

>>14741278
In most cases yes. But there are people with XY chromosomes and a variety of defects that suppress the function of the Y. They will grow up as biological females. Similarly one in 10,000-20,000 newborns will be biologically male, but without a Y chromosome. It's not fully understood how, or why, but a possible reason could be a translocation of the relevant sequence from a Y chromosome to an X chromosome.

[Anonymous No.14742297]

>>14741726
wrong

[Anonymous No.14742311]

>>14741734
Why would you value an excessively large number of men that contribute a large quantity of time to their funko pops and discussing the latest capeshit? There's slim pickins on both sides, but why would you willingly attempt to start a family with a person that couldn't protect you from a flat tire?

[Anonymous No.14742318]

>>14741278
The SRY gene is basically the only thing that determines male sex. It's on the Y chromosome, but it can be moved to a few other chromosomes and still determine male sex.
The rest of the Y chromosome has little function. This is okay, though, because we can still modify the Y to regulate autosomes to express different phenotypes between males and females. This is the basis for how we're going to modify males to be eternally small for when we genetically modify humans to express extreme female biased sexual size dimorphism.
Women are going to be modified to be 6'5"+ and thick and super fecund, and men will be made ~3'10" and lean and super athletic

[Anonymous No.14742330]

>>14742318
kill yourself, you mentally ill autist

[Anonymous No.14742336]

>>14742330
You are the one who is mentally ill, thinking that there is anything wrong with female biased dimorphism. There is literally nothing wrong with big women or small men or extreme female biased size dimorphism. It is a better dimorphism.

[Anonymous No.14743322]

>>14741278
Conception is not when the sperm and egg fuse, but when the blastocyst implants onto a surface.
99.9% of the time, the chromosomes function as intended and determine the sex. On rare occasion, something fucks up and the sexual phenotypes don't match the genotypes.

[Anonymous No.14743340]

>>14741594
>Western society should use this to become 70% female in order to solve the incel problem
Funny way of spelling Chinese society.

[Anonymous No.14743407]

>>14741507
>Interestingly enough, the mass of the x chromosome is heavier than that of the y chromosome. Therefore you can centrifuge and sample sperm by weight in order to choose sons or daughters.
Tell me anon, could this feasibly be done DIY by an armature? Where can I read more?

>>14741594
Make it 30% men 50% women 20% futa

>>14742311
Those men are still working jobs and contributing to society. Beta males are the reason there is society, a nation of alpha males would collapse.

[Anonymous No.14743425]

>>14741278
No it was determined when the universe began

[Anonymous No.14743504]

>>14743407
>Tell me anon, could this feasibly be done DIY by an armature? Where can I read more?
Possibly, in order to do it effectively you would have to combine the technique with things like in vitro fertilization and/or flow cytometry. Much more efficient to just walk into a fertility or abortion clinic and ask for girls.

[Anonymous No.14743537]

>>14743504
>Much more efficient to just walk into a fertility or abortion clinic and ask for girls.
This is illegal where I live. Is it such a crime to want to choose? There are more men than women in the world, why is society so sexist against me having a daughter?

A little off topic but what do you suggest here?

[Anonymous No.14743559]

>>14743537
You could just do it illegally or travel for abortion, lol

[Anonymous No.14743590]

>>14741594
Doesn't work that way. There was a study that observed what happened in university classes where female students outnumbered male students. The females created EVEN MORE LOPSIDED HAREMS around the top dog alpha males.
Bottom line is, you can't prevent hypergamous behavior with that kind of approach.

[Anonymous No.14743809]

>>14743407
>Those men are still working jobs and contributing to society. Beta males are the reason there is society, a nation of alpha males would collapse.
Not necessarily. Many of them just take up space and use up resources under a parent. Not to mention that contributing to society doesn't automatically grant you respect or authority in any way.

[Anonymous No.14743900]

>>14743407
>Make it 30% men 50% women 20% futa
if we can make futa then 100% futa is the only way

[Anonymous No.14744044]

>>14742330
Men (we) are being groomed into simps, betas and carebears

[Anonymous No.14744760]

>>14743590
The top dog alpha males aren't going to settle for the butterface girl next door if the ratio is 70% women. They simply won't have time.

[Anonymous No.14744980]

>>14743809
That's not the point. Can you imagine a society where every single man is an alpha male trying to assert his dominance over everyone else? That would collapse. You need betas to work and be subservient.

>>14743900
I feel like a hermaphrodite race without a natural dominant gender is inherently flawed. I think it could be useful to develop more distinct sexes to have a natural caste system.

[Anonymous No.14744986]

>>14742318
I'm new to /sci/
Is it normal for Scientific Minded people to be such degenerates as to talk about their sexual fetish for huge women such as this?

We know you want to become a little tampon for a giant ogress female, but common, the OP asked a serious question
Or is this an elaborate troll?

[Anonymous No.14744990]

>>14744986
Not at all. This is one spammer who's been doing this for a long time. It's better to just ignore and report him.

[Anonymous No.14745033]

>>14744980
There's nothing wrong with beta males, but what I described isn't a beta male. One could argue they're not even human, but physical manifestation of a consoomer NPC. Alpha males are a small percentage of the population, and you don't have to be an alpha male to deserve respect. They're also probably far more likely to be potential disease carriers and incapable of bonding from sexual history, so it's more like a meal from a 5 star restaurant that you get salmonella poisoning from eating.

[Anonymous No.14745240]

>>14745033
>One could argue they're not even human, but physical manifestation of a consoomer NPC.
I don't think so, this is just your hyperbolic interpretation of them. The people who were puritan fanatics hunting witches were the same type of people.

I don't know what a beta male even is, I just use it to refer to normalfags who aren't alpha. I just think all people are needed in society, it all has a purpose.

[Anonymous No.14745524]

>>14745240
Well, you've got the difference between being a decent worker bee and being a good partner to have a family with. People aren't required to accept responsibility, and having a family is no longer a priority like it once was. There's common guilt about population issues, immigration resolving shortages to give less fortunate people the same opportunities, the environment, etc. that are frequently used as argument points to essentially shame people into believing they are selfish for wanting to start a family. Naturally people will be deterred from the idea, whatever their personal reasons may be. The end result is adults that do not want to settle down until past their expiration date, and do ridiculous things to fill the dopamine void in the mean time. So we have a society filled with people that would never make worthy partners nor parents now. It's a complex issue.

[Anonymous No.14745532]

>>14744986
newfag lurk more
also it's not an elaborate troll, this is what we're going to do to people. female-biased sexual size dimorphism is in fact the ideal dimorphism, and genetic engineering is going to be used to express this phenotype in people.
>>14744990
you will never get rid of me and I'm right about everything I say. your preference for male biased dimorphism doesn't matter at all.

[Anonymous No.14745549]

>>14745532
>newfag lurk more
You're showing your narcissism here, you think everyone should know who you are and care about your retarded posts

[Anonymous No.14745568]

>>14744990
>Not at all. This is one spammer who's been doing this for a long time. It's better to just ignore and report him.
Gotcha. Thanks for the heads up.

>>14745532
>newfag lurk more
I was lurking you moron. Then that guy said some shit I couldn't ignore.
How exactly do you want me to learn theculture of thisspecific board if Idon't ask questions, like these ?
I'm literally said I'm new, as a way to show good faith, that I was in learning stage.
Fuck off.

>also it's not an elaborate troll, this is what we're going to do to people. female-biased sexual size dimorphism is in fact the ideal dimorphism, and genetic engineering is going to be used to express this phenotype in people.
But women will never date short men.At least they would never date a man who's shorter than them.

Do you want to reverse millions of years of Evolution? Good luck with that one, faggot.

>you will never get rid of me and I'm right about everything I say. your preference for male biased dimorphism doesn't matter at all.
Maybe you'll be hee forever.
But you're igonring the overwhelming evidence and self report ofwomen that say that they don't want to date small men.
So I'll ask my question again, how exactly do you intend to reverse millions of years of Evolution and Male biased Sexual Dismorphism actually?

You're gonna lobotomize women into thinking that short frail minuscule men are better for survival of the human species?
Who's gonna invent, build, run and maintain infrastructure once the men are weak small and incompetent ?
You make no sense.
Are you a Feminist in clever fetish degenerate's disguise?
LMAO

[Anonymous No.14745570]

>>14745549
why do you hate female biased size dimorphism so much?

[Anonymous No.14745586]

>>14745568
Newfriend stop arguing with him. I told you already. Since the mods started deleting his threads he now tries to derail ones.

[Anonymous No.14745587]

>>14745568
there is no genetic disposition to height preference in women, so your argument is actually built on a wrong premise. Women do not hate shorter men in the way you think they do; preference for tall men is not equivalent to hatred for short men.
in a world were women are typically larger than men, people will develop that preference as the typical preference, with minor variation.
in fact, if there were a genetic disposition like you're implying, we could find it like we find any other trait, then we'd just knock it out and replace it with the genes that code for preference for smaller males, so it wouldn't pose a problem in either case.
basically, the flaw you think is there is not actually there. there are workarounds in every case.

[Anonymous No.14745600]

>>14745586
ignoring things doesn't make them go away

[Anonymous No.14745609]

>>14745568
>You're gonna lobotomize women into thinking that short frail minuscule men are better for survival of the human species?
sorry for not responding in the other post.
I never describe the men as frail, I describe them as being like boys on steroids. They are superior in the modern world to large men, as they have advantages in modern forms of combat, and are capable of performing all relevant labor for a fraction of the resources and energy. Small men are superior to large ones in the modern and future world. A super athletic strong 3'10" man is superior to a super athletic strong 6'5" man, he'd kill him far more often in a fight and he can do so for like a third of the caloric needs.
The women, being giant, can be programmed to super ovulate and always gestate litters. The population will grow incredibly fast and use fewer resources to support large populations.

[Anonymous No.14745617]

>>14745600
And in this instance, neither will attempting to humiliate the tall woman/small man poster. You're proving nothing, you're not changing anyone's mind. Learn to shitpost.

[Anonymous No.14745623]

>>14745600
You're right unfortunately. When no one responds which is the usual case now he actually puts on another persona and pretends to be a fan of himself, even calling himself "the best poster on /sci/". You wouldn't believe how sad this guy is. But you arguing with him encourages him to completely derail a thread. You're a newfag, is this what you want to bring to /sci/? This thread being ruined by yourself?

[Anonymous No.14745644]

>>14745623
Dude, I dont do that. I swear to god I've told you this several times already, I am not the only person on this board that likes the idea of female biased dimorphism. There's at least 4 other guys, your headcannon is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14745718]

>>14744760
The butterface girl is not going to give you the time of day *even if* the alpha male is not currently banging them. Having sexual relations with a lower rung male damages a woman's reputation and threatens her position in the social hierarchy and whatever remote chance she has of sleeping with Chad. That's hypergamy 101.

[Anonymous No.14745731]

>>14745718
why do incels like this always project?

[Anonymous No.14745734]

>>14745586
>Newfriend stop arguing with him. I told you already. Since the mods started deleting his threads he now tries to derail ones.
I know, I can't help myself.
I love talking to autists, for some reason.
I like to see when their logic gets pushed to it's logical conclusion.
I'm sorry, I'll stop feeding the troll now.

>>14745587
>there is no genetic disposition to height preference in women, so your argument is actually built on a wrong premise.
That's categorically wrong.
If there was no so called genetic predisposition for women to prefer tallmen, then why do Women across all time, all places and all cultures prefer tall men?
If you were right, then with social engineering there should be cultures where women prefer short men.

You're taking the Damn if I do, Damned if I don't approach to a logical and simple problem.
There is a Height preference and Sexual Selection of Males based on height in the human species.
It's a fact, not an opinion.
All Data, all research points to the same thing : Women like Tall Men.
Men don't have to have a preference in Women's height, because it is the women who have all The Power of Sexual Selection, as opposed to natural selection.

Both Natural Selection and Sexual Selection prefer taller, smarter and stronger men.

It's like you said that "We should make Men Dumb, because I said so, and if women don't like that, then change their DNA so that they like Dumb Men".

All of this sounds like the Cope Fantasy of a midget.
Are you a coping midget by any chance?

[Anonymous No.14745747]

>>14745734
>If there was no so called genetic predisposition for women to prefer tallmen, then why do Women across all time, all places and all cultures prefer tall men?
They don't. Preference for taller men various extremely between populations, even being non-existant in many populations, which have no male taller norm. You are wrong in your premise.
>If you were right, then with social engineering there should be cultures where women prefer short men.
There are. There are cultures in the amazon where the women are bigger and prefer smaller men.
>There is a Height preference and Sexual Selection of Males based on height in the human species.
No, there isn't. You don't actually know what you're talking about.
>All Data, all research points to the same thing : Women like Tall Men.
No, the research shows the opposite. The male taller norm varies a lot between cultures, taller male preference varies between women and cultures.
You don't actually know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14745763]

>>14745734
>>14745747
For example, not only is there no sexual selection on male height, but taller male height is slightly negatively correlated with reproductive success in human males, i.e. shorter men have more kids than taller ones.
I'm sorry dude but you actually don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14745768]

>>14745734
>>14745587
>>14745609

>>14745609
>A super athletic strong 3'10" man is superior to a super athletic strong 6'5" man, he'd kill him far more often in a fight and he can do so for like a third of the caloric needs.
You're confusing 2 very different things :
YOu're confusing Physical Strength in aconfrontation with Energy Efficency of smaller ceatures.
We have reached Food Abundance long time ago, so we don't need for our bodies to be energy efficient.
Energy efficiencies are only relevant in times of Crisis.
Like with the Dinosaur extinction : Small creatures survived because they reproduce very quickly, have a lot of babies and don't need much energy to survive compared to larger animals/dinosaurs.

The advantage of being small doesn't work at all in real life.
Being bigger, stronger, more muscles gives you more power.
A 6ft tall athlete will outrun any midget you put against him.
He will do everything better and lift more weight, hit harder and all that.

There isn't a single advantage of being smaller, appart the argument of "being faster".
But as I showed above, a small person will never outrun a taller one.
Smaller legs, smaller everything.

There's literally no good reason to make men short, except Energy Efficiency, which is has been irrelevant since about the 15th century, because we've had abbudance of energy (food) for centuries now.

Men have grown in size, in strength and in intellect since then.
You're litterally trying to go Against Natural Selection, Sexual Selection and all that.

If being Small was better, then why are we, the most succesful life form to ever exist in the fucking cosmos?

If you were right, that short men are "better in many ways", then why has nature made us so big?
If you were right, there would be no need to genetically modify anything, instead you would let nature or civilisation select Human Males for being short and the Human species would be short as you want it to be.

[Anonymous No.14745773]

>>14745587
>>14745609
>>14745768
This is a mental checkmate, friend.
If it were better like you say, then it would have naturally occured.
The fact it hasn't proves your wrong and I'm right.

You can't logically argue against this.
Nature is always trying to optimize everything.
If having short men more optimal, then we would already be that way naturally.
The fact that men keep getting bigger and taller, is proof that you are wrong and the Natural Order of things wants Tall Strong Intelligent Men, not little sissy faggot midgets.

I'm starting to think I'm just talking with a butthurt midget.

[Anonymous No.14745783]

>>14745768
Nope. If I can put the same amount of energy to have 3 times the amount of people AND the people have a greater probability of shooting and killing your population, I have a superior population.
The 6 foot athlete would be shot and killed by the small athlete more often than the small athlete would be shot and killed by the larger one.
>>14745773
You don't understand how genetics works, which is why you don't understand how sexual dimorphism occurs in mammals.

[Anonymous No.14745789]

>>14745747
>There are. There are cultures in the amazon where the women are bigger and prefer smaller men.
Are you fucking with me m8?
The "Amazon Civilisation" never existed.
The Fantasy of "Tall Strong Matriarchal Female Hunter/Warrior Civilisation" is just that, a fucking fantasy.
Amazons never existed you massive muppet.

If they existed, post proof.
There is no proof. I already know the outcome of this.

>No, there isn't. You don't actually know what you're talking about.
There is.
Talk to any dating coach.
Talk to any Sexual Psychologist / Psychiatrist.
Talk to any Geneticist.
Talk to any women really.
It's simple reallt :
1- Go outside (and touch a few bladex of grass while you're there)
2- Find women to talk to
3- Talk to the women
4- Ask what height a man should be to attract them
5- write down and compile results.
It's pretty cool, you can do this yourself.
But you won't because it challenges your narrative.

>No, the research shows the opposite. The male taller norm varies a lot between cultures, taller male preference varies between women and cultures.
>You don't actually know what you're talking about.
Actual retard detected.
Simply use a Search Engine if you're incapable of directly talking to women.
Fucking autistic faggot midget.

[Anonymous No.14745812]

>>14745783
>Nope. If I can put the same amount of energy to have 3 times the amount of people AND the people have a greater probability of shooting and killing your population,
Ok so why are Humandominating the planet and not mice?
What about Bacteria?
Bacteria are smaller, more energy efficient, reproduce at unmatched rates, have superior population and can have hacks like being super-resistant to certain elements.
Why are Bacteria or Water-bears not dominating the planet?
Because what you said is a logical fallacy.
If you were right, then the smallest life forms would be running the show on planet Earth and evidently they are not.
Another easy Checkmate.

>You don't understand how genetics works, which is why you don't understand how sexual dimorphism occurs in mammals
Fuck you retard.
My point stand and you still have no fucking answer to my point :

WHY are human naturally Tall if we would be better off being small midgets?
If you're so confident, then why don't midget Run the World, literally?
You have no answer to this.

Maybe you have "3 times the amount of people" but let's pause and think about that for a second.
Let's take 1 single strong/muscular Adult Male Human, 1m90 / 6ft5, and have him fight 3 midgets, or 3 kids.
Who will win?
The adult? Yes?
Then once again I invalidated your point logically.

Everyone know a Tall man can fight 3 midget simoutaneously and win.
Once again proving you wrong.

So I've proved you wrong, using common sense examples that are undeniable, to show you just how stupid you are.
And I'm a regular guy, not even a scientist or whatnot.

You're terminally retarded m8.
It was fun to entertain your ridiculous ideas.
Bye, and have fun fatasizing about Amazon Women that never existed.

We know it's you Warwick Davis.
Your cover is blown.

[Anonymous No.14745816]

>>14745789
amazon meaning amazon rainforest in brazil, not the amazon warriors from greek legend
In terms of the variation of preference for the male taller norm, there is a shitload of research on the variation of the preference between cultures or even just between individual women. Even in different western cultures like comparing america to europe there is substantial difference in the variation.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1026.6531&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474704916671522
https://docksci.com/the-male-taller-norm-lack-of-evidence-from-a-developing-country_5a49c10bd64ab26d4a26676a.html

Also, out of the 21 women I've been with in my life, only 6 were shorter than me. The rest were my height or taller than me, so even in my own experience it doesn't exist.
Also, as shown, there is no relation between male height and reproductive success.
Also, even if there were a genetic basis, which was not found when looked for in the GWAS for it, we could just change it, so it also doesn't matter.
If you argument is going to be about sexual preferences then it's weak as we know most preferences are culturally influenced.

[Anonymous No.14745831]

>>14745812
The biggest lifeforms are also not running the earth you dumbass. Blue whales and elephants and giraffes and shit don't run the planet. Intelligence is the thing you're looking at as the dominant trait, and we can modify men and women to be highly intelligent regardless of their size so you're arguing for a completely different thing.
>WHY are human naturally Tall if we would be better off being small midgets?
Human males average 5'6"
>If you're so confident, then why don't midget Run the World, literally?
Short men literally do run the world.
>Maybe you have "3 times the amount of people" but let's pause and think about that for a second. Let's take 1 single strong/muscular Adult Male Human, 1m90 / 6ft5, and have him fight 3 midgets, or 3 kids. Who will win? The adult? Yes? Then once again I invalidated your point logically.
No, it is far more likely that being both outnumbered and being larger, the smaller group will shoot and kill him before he is able to shoot and kill all of the other ones. I do not care about fistfights because real fighting is done with weapons, where smaller males have advantages against large ones. The united nations have done research on this already studying rebel fighting groups who use child soldiers. Child soldiers are highly effective at fighting. And I'm talking about adult males who are intelligent and have years of experience AND the small size of children on steroids. They have all the relevant traits for being highly effective at all relevant tasks.

Small men are in fact superior to large ones, it does not matter that you like large men, they are inefficient and inferior and as we become better at modifying genes, we're going to make men smaller.

[Anonymous No.14745864]

>>14745816
>>14745831
Have to leave right now.

Will read your bullshit.
But I stand by what I said.
Your bullshit doesn't really work and just analyzing nature is enough to know you're talking bullshit m8.

But I find it fun talking to retards and schizo.
Somehow, you're both.
Congrats.

[Anonymous No.14745882]

>>14745864
Not really. Even in our American population, about 10% of women do not have preference for taller men, so even within a population with a strong male taller norm it varies.

[Anonymous No.14745910]

>>14745731
Your pet theory for addressing hypergamy is incorrect, get over it.

[Anonymous No.14746018]

What I find most ironic about this is that I get much more support for the big woman small man race from women than I do from men. It's almost always men who argue against it and they do so from the perspective of women's sexual preferences for tall men, whereas women like the idea and when explained tend to want to become matriarchal amazons with smaller husbands that they can control and stuff. Of course this isn't every woman or man but it's the trend that I see, which I think is kind of funny.

[Anonymous No.14746026]

>>14746018
What I find most ironic is that you think online trolls are women. The absolute state of autistic incels.

[Anonymous No.14746030]

>>14746026
I've spoken to many women in real life about this as well, and also women online. I'm a graduate student. Not an incel either, nor am I autistic. I don't know why this makes you seethe so much.

[Anonymous No.14746035]

>>14746030
Let us know when you make a TED talk about it.

[Anonymous No.14746036]

>>14746030
You've never spoken to a woman in real life except for your mother.

[Anonymous No.14746045]

>>14746035
Ok
>>14746036
Wrong. I don't understand why you get so upset about this. I am not autistic, I have an active social life, I am in graduate school, and I am correct about everything I say.
Your hatred for small men is nothing but outdated bigotry and it's not a compelling argument. I don't care that you think small men are worse than large ones.

[Anonymous No.14746047]

>>14746045
You will never feel the skin of a woman.

[Anonymous No.14746049]

>>14746047
I've had 4 girlfriends in my life so far already, your insults don't mean anything.
Small men remain superior to large ones and your preference for large men is irrelevant in the face of our advancing techniques.
You will fuck small men and you will like it.

[Anonymous No.14746051]

>>14746049
You will never be kissed by a woman. lol

[Anonymous No.14746053]

>>14746051
it's too late for that lol
You aren't going to stop this research by pretending that I'm an incel
come up with an actual reason as to why female biased dimorphism in the way that i describe is bad.

[Anonymous No.14746056]

>>14746053
>it's too late for that lol
Yep. The time for intervention is during puberty. You will never be tall.

[Anonymous No.14746061]

>>14746056
I don't want to be tall. Most of the women I've been with have been taller than me, I wouldn't have been able to do that if I were tall myself.

[Anonymous No.14746066]

>>14746061
>Most of the women I've been with have been taller than me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

[Anonymous No.14746067]

>>14746066
>"YOURE AN INCEL BECAUSE I DONT LIKE YOUR IDEA
Come up with something better already, it's getting stale.

[Anonymous No.14746085]

>>14746067
>Come up with something better already, it's getting stale.

[Anonymous No.14746087]

>>14746085
You have been mentally broken.

[Anonymous No.14746097]

>>14746087
Then how come I'm not the one consumed by fantasies of an alternative reality where my short height is desirable to women?

[Anonymous No.14746098]

>>14745812
>WHY are human naturally Tall if we would be better off being small midgets?
Short height is better for long lifespan, tall height is better for physical labor and self defense. I could see short height being more favorable in the future, but only if women find it more acceptable. Certainly if I were rich and extremely handsome I would not mind being a couple inches shorter.

[Anonymous No.14746104]

>>14746097
I'm not saying that women in the modern world prefer short men. I'm saying that the preference is not innate and so we can ignore it as an argument against the idea of modifying humans to become small men and large women.
Women generally preferring tall men =/= women do not like short men either. I don't know why you're trying to shoehorn women into this role, ironically while calling me the incel here.

[Anonymous No.14746111]

>>14746098
but see, tall height is not actually better for self defense in the modern world. Being smaller and quicker and leaner and strong is a better combination of traits in a fight where anyone can kill the other person by hitting him with a bullet first.
So now not only is shorter height better for longer lifespan, but it's also better for fighting.

[Anonymous No.14746114]

>>14746104
>I'm not saying that women in the modern world prefer short men
I wonder if that has anything to do with your desperate obsession.

[Anonymous No.14746120]

>>14746114
I don't struggle attracting women so I don't really care. The problem is that I'm not half the size of a woman which is what I really want.
Why do you hate the idea of women being large and men being small so much?

[Anonymous No.14746133]

>>14746120
>I'm not saying that women in the modern world prefer short men
>I don't struggle attracting women
>I'm just obsessed with a delusional alternate reality where women are attracted to short men
You are like that schizophrenic rambling hobo who insists the cute cashier at the store he keeps stealing from is his wife.

[Anonymous No.14746145]

>>14746133
What you're saying makes no sense. Unless you, ironically, are an incel who never goes outside, you will see that short men and tall men and short women and tall women etc. all routinely engage in sexual activities and form relationships with each other. Actually go outside, if you live in a major city go outside this weekend, and you will see a large percentage of couples where the woman is taller than the man.
I don't understand what it is that you're saying. It's like you genuinely believe that short guys do not have girlfriends in real life. And none of this has anything to do with my actual reasons for making men small and women large.
Can you please stop making nonsensical posts and actually address the idea?

[Anonymous No.14746174]

I swear to god femanon if you only argument is "short men are not personally desirable to me so I hate your idea" then you don't actually have a solid argument. You're better than that.

[Anonymous No.14746184]

>>14745763
DOI?

[Anonymous No.14746187]

>>14746111
Short height is better for warfare, not self defense. In most self defense situations (short of home invasion/mass shooter) you would not easily draw a gun. If you're massive and buff, you could knock someone out who is pointing a gun to you, or shove someone with a knife over, and run away.

[Anonymous No.14746214]

>>14746187
Warfare is what matters though in terms of modifying humans for society. And in a self defense situation I don't think that the person with the gun is going to be at a disadvantage.

[Anonymous No.14746235]

Also, another thing I find interesting, is that it's tall women who are most fine with the idea. Tall women, especially ones that are a lot taller than average (like women who already taller than 6') are the ones who like the idea the most. This to me is strong evidence of the socialized nature of height preferences and stuff. Obviously it's anecdotal but I find it interesting. Women who are already taller than the majority of people are the ones most comfortable or even enthusiastic about it when I explain it to them.
Why would this be the case if there was a hardwired preference for women to want to be smaller than men? Why would women who are already bigger than the majority of men, be the ones most comfortable with the idea of making men even smaller and other women bigger?

[Anonymous No.14746246]

>>14746235
What I mean is, if it weren't socialized then taller women wouldn't be more likely to like the idea than shorter ones. Also, women in the middle height are the ones who hate it the most. Shorter women go either way, but middle height women who are kind of taller than half of men and shorter than the other half are the ones who hate the idea the most. This gives more evidence to me for the socialized nature of the preference. It's the medium height women who struggle with their height and femininity who are the ones to get most angry at the idea, while tall women like it the most and shorter women seem to go either way. Although again this is all anecdotal.

[Anonymous No.14746267]

>>14746246
There's a study that tall women are more accepting of shorter men, but that's not surprising, since they have no choice.

[Anonymous No.14746284]

>>14746267
It's not the case of them not having a choice, it's just that they are used to it so they develop that preference more often. Of course a woman who is used to being taller than men is going to have a higher chance to develop the preference for being taller than men.

[Anonymous No.14746289]

>>14746284
They don't have a choice because a woman who is already 6' or 6'2'' cannot reasonably only date taller men

[Anonymous No.14746290]

>>14746235
>But women will never date short men
>>14745734
>>If there was no so called genetic predisposition for women to prefer tallmen, then why do Women across all time, all places and all cultures prefer tall men?
Debunked. Average height men have the most reproductive success. Human height follows stabilizing selection and the gap in height between females and males has been shrinking over the course of evolutionary history.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22389549/

Any perceptible preference for taller men among women is culturally ingrained, like as a result of the patriarchy. With the push for gender equality, women actually prefer men of the same height or lower since tall men add an unfair power imbalance which women find scary and intimidating especially if the guy snaps and becomes violent. There is no point to prefer tall men and this patriarchal preference is forced to keep women weaker and dependent to men.

[Anonymous No.14746292]

>>14746289
but we're not talking about them dating people we're talking about the fact that they lost preference for men taller than them, or even develop preferences for men shorter than them.
If height preferences were innate this would not happen regardless of their lack of options. They would remain not-attracted to shorter men even with the fact that they were taller than 95% of men.

[Anonymous No.14746311]

>>14746290
Meant to quote >>14745568

But this is >>14746235 true
It's an interesting point because taller women are more chill when it comes to height and many have a preference for shorter guys. I guess they've learned not to be self-conscious about it and being used to being taller than most people develops that preference.

[Anonymous No.14746315]

>>14746311
I hate tiktok so god damn much
I agree with your post though

[Anonymous No.14746358]

>>14745568
>Are you a Feminist in clever fetish degenerate's disguise?
Implying you can't both be a feminist and support the large female small male dimorphism. And from a feminist standpoint the value should be readily apparent in making women more powerful via increased height and strength. Overall gender power dynamics could range from at least more gender equality going all the way to total matriarchal domination. Most women would be open to supporting this (secretly or not) and most men too but the grumpy men stubbornly clinging onto to old fashioned gender stereotypes would be the hardest to convince over.

[Anonymous No.14746834]

So he's allowed to completely derail and ruin threads again. Great. Nice job, jannies.

[Anonymous No.14746939]

>>14741278
Biological sex is determined when the child builds an understanding of their own sexual identity and declares what they are. How long this takes can depend on the child. Some don't establish their biological sexual identity until adulthood and they're valid too.

[Anonymous No.14747462]

>>14745718
Delusional. Spend a week without using this website for your own sake