Chess is pretty autistic, too, and autism is more prevalent in males.
The thing is, you can't actually show me the perfect explanation that excludes all social factors from men being better at either autism and chess. It would be impossible. The same way, you can't make a spreadsheet of why a person is 198 cm tall, and not 197 or 199.
This is what Rhys is going on about.
"The truth is, we don’t know [what makes men better at sports compared to women]. "
So, here he agrees, men are better.
There are elite world championship level men with natural testosterone below the women’s average, and they’re competing at no disadvantage to men with 100 times as much testosterone.
Notice, it can't be testosterone. The same way Micheal Jordan is a short basketball player. The logic is all flawed. He's saying it can't be positive, because some well-performing athletes don't have it. Messi is a very short man, and probably the best football player in the world. Doesn't mean he is at an advantage because of it. He isn't the best because he is small. The idea that something can both be positive, and not necessary, doesn't strike the ex-prof as possible.
In combat sports they have weight classes. Those are the most blatant example. Mighty Mouse wouldn't stand one second against anyone in the elite middleweight or above. The idea is ludicrous. However, some fighters can punch above their weight, and certainly against lesser opponents. Like Daniel Cormier. He was so talented that he was able to win the LHW and HW, while being much shorter than his opponents. It still doesn't mean he was at no disadvantage, he was just able to overcome or outsmart his opponents. Watching his fights, you would know his height did give him some issues.
So there are certainly, maybe, some biological reasons for men, on average, being bigger, stronger, faster than women, but we do know that there are also social reasons
Certainly, maybe. You practiced law right, AnOmnious? You get the facts that don't support your case, out of the way early. Then you leave just a tiny bit of doubt around it, so you can't be told you didn't take it into account. On either side of that fact, is a "but maybe it isn't a fact". And of course, he is right. There is a social reason. Nobody in Uganda knows how to ski, and someone from the Sentinel Island probably can't drive for shit. Again he hammers it down, if it can't explain everything, it doesn't explain anything. The glove must fit, or you must acquit.
As long as he can keep it down to the facts, he still has a chance in the public court. Facts aren't really subjective, and they don't give you an answer. They are just there to make the fundament of which your answer is built. That's how science work, in the end you always need a subjective opinion.
In our case the question shouldn't be "are men better at sports", but "why are men better at sports". Rhys however need it to be the former. Because then he can muddy the waters. As soon as you look at the actual evidence, no female being able to compete at nearly any elite level in almost any sport, you obviously know it is the latter. The idea that socializing is such a strong, universally applied tool, that not a single woman is able to overcome it, ever, isn't nearly as logical as just accepting the biological component is the most important.
Which brings us to chess. While there aren't that many female GM's as males, they are still much closer to the elite than in other sports. It is much more supportive of it being more about socializing than biology. Yifan Hou is in the top 100 as of January in the FIDE rankings. There isn't a female basketball player, football player or wrestler in the top 10 000, probably not even further down the list either. Considering a) how misogynistic most of the world is, b) chess was a boys club in Europa at least until recently, you shouldn't be surprised if the actual ratio of boys and girls being supported to play chess is 1-100 in favour of the boys.
www.unilad.co.uk
