I certainly understand your opinion; judging by Parson Jim's response to your first post, I can see your point. Maybe you're right, but I'll keep my hope for a while longer. I see Parson Jim is interested in my response, since he introjected a post of his own between my first post to you and my first post to him to show he was waiting for it.

Maybe it's because, to a certain extent and with all the exaggerations removed, I can also vaguely see where he is coming from. I also remember feeling a little 'under attack' because of certain feminist ideas, and I decided not to be a feminist at some point during my adolescence because of that. So I sense a common hurt there. And I wonder if, by showing them respect and trying to argue at a polite level, I could make them realize how extreme their position is. Yes, I know, I sound a bit Pollyanna-like, trying to argue against radical feminists and radical anti-feminists in the hope of finding a common middle ground. Well, I feel like giving it a try. If it doesn't work, then I'll stop.

that, at least for most physical sports, men and women will have two non-coinciding bell-shaped performance curves, so they will form two clear statistical populations. And that it makes sense to keep them separate in sports, because men would have an advantage (the mean of their bell-shaped curve has a higher value) and that would imply discouraging women from participating.

If tests are necessary, I'd say test for what gives men the advantage -- in this case, androgen sensitivity and testosterone level. Anyone with androgen insensitivity and testosterone level below a certain threshold will be declared athletically female. Those sensitive to androgen and with testosterone level above a certain threshold will be declared athletically male. This regardless of any penises or vaginas, wombs or scrota, X or Y chromosomes that any specific athlete might happen to possess.

Canuckistan Bob mentioned that sports and games competitions are also often segregated by sex, even when there would in principle be no advantage, as in chess. Does anyone know the history behind that? Was that really something the women wanted, not the men? Or was it just natural to segregate, since men and women in the past were so often segregated in other areas (e.g. school)?

But if in principle women can get rooms on the King floor, and men can also get rooms in the Women's executive floor (men who are planning to hit on women might actually want that), how exactly does that guarantee a men-only or women-only environment? Besides, it's just a question of using the elevator, right?

Having often stayed in hostels myself, I totally agree with the LW who said even a normal room in a normal hotel is a lot of privacy. And, for the ladies who get hit on often in the gym room -- are such men really that much of a problem? Can't you simply say no and go on exercising? And if he insists, can't you just call someone from the hotel?

Melanie Roach? Do you people feel that her return to weightlifting also had something to do with being juiced? (From what I understand she had to recover from a severe back injury.)

I went to highschool in Brazil, and all I know about American highschools comes from American movies. It's a different world -- not as different as "Baghdah High", but still a very different wavelength. First, because I had to go through a favela on my way to school, I was certainly much more aware of class distinctions and what some people had to go through than most American adolescents I've met. Second, because "English" and "America" were also taught at school, but as if they were real things, more like stories about some far-away fairyland where magic things like Magnum or Charlie's Angels happen. Even the exotic city names -- New York, Chicago, Washington (which we could never pronounce really well) looked so alluring. An American friend who spent a few years in the Peace Corps told me about an Afghani teenager who, upon hearing that he was from America, said: "America! Ah, the land where there is no suffering." We Brazillian kids didn't quite think that, but it wasn't really far either.

Hm, I'd point out that, if it's "women over 40" and "men 25 to 35", then the least difference is 6, not 5 years (41-35=6). Also, note the whole range: 25-35 x over 40 gives you differences ranging from 6 to at least 16 (41-25) and above (50-25=25, for example). When the possibilities are so widespread, why should we be so concerned about the lowest possible value allowed by the range? If the article were about "men over 40 dating women 25 to 35", would we be so concerned about the lower and upper limits here as defining these relationships?

Of course, older men dating younger women was -- and maybe still is -- often seen as more natural than older women dating younger men. That's what probably should change, if it hasn't yet. Absolute numbers aren't as important as relative perceptions.