#dimorphism

Kryptonians

Alpha Fem Equivalent Cythonn=Ice blue and lilac eyes most common. Often wavy ankle length has white hair. Mature face features upper average 6 feet 4. Baboon like teeth,icy blue tongue white line. CCC average,dong 5 soft,8 hard. Curvy muscle body big butt. Better birthing kids than fem human Alphas. Black nails.

https://efsupit.ro/images/stories/march2026/Art%2050.pdf

Abstract

By: Paul Arnold

Published: Apr 18, 2026

The physical differences between men and women are all too obvious, but the biological divide goes right down to the cellular level in the brain, according to a new study published in the journal Science.

While we have known for a long time that men and women face different risks for brain disorders such as depression and Alzheimer's, we haven't always known why. Although this latest research doesn't directly answer this, it could help us better understand the underlying biology.

Most previous research has focused on broad sections of brain tissue, but in this study, a team of researchers analyzed more than one million nuclei from six different cortical regions from 30 donors.

Decoding brain differences

Previous MRI scans of these brain regions had shown physical differences in size or volume between the sexes. The scientists wanted to see if gene activity matched the physical differences seen on the scans.

The technique they used was single-nucleus RNA sequencing, which allows researchers to examine the genetic instructions within individual cells. Specifically, the focus was on how gene expression varies across different cell types and regions.

The study identified more than 3,000 genes that differ in expression between males and females. These differences included how genes are turned on or off and how active genes are in producing RNA messages that guide protein production. What's more, they aren't spread evenly across the brain, as the team explains, "Broader effects of sex on autosomal expression are captured in 13 core signatures with varying cell type versus region specificity."

For example, the differences were much stronger (a higher number of genes were behaving differently) in certain areas like the fusiform cortex, which is a part of the brain involved in face recognition and complex visual processing.

Some of the strongest variations were seen in glial cells, which insulate neurons, but perhaps not surprisingly, the biggest differences were in the sex chromosome genes (X and Y). However, hundreds of genes across the entire genome are also influenced by sex.

Disease risk

When it comes to disease risk, the study found that some of the genes showing sex differences are the same ones linked to brain conditions that affect men and women differently, such as autism, ADHD, Alzheimer's disease and mood disorders. "This study substantially advances the breadth, depth, and granularity of knowledge on sex differences in the human brain," added the team.

The researchers explain that while their study has provided a massive amount of data, it is just the beginning. Future research could focus on when the changes appear and how they are influenced by the environment.

––

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea9063

Sex effects on gene expression across the human cerebral cortex at cell type resolution

Editor’s summary

Several neurological disorders exhibit sex biases, and sex-determined differences in gene transcription in the brain might explain some of them. DeCasien et al. performed single-cell transcriptomic analysis of the adult human cerebral cortex across six cortical regions (see the Perspective by Tollkuhn and Breedlove). Differences between male and female brain donors varied according to cell type and region specificity, many of which were linked to known disease loci. At the cellular level, the authors did not detect any sex-biased changes in cellular proportions, suggesting that a sex difference in gene expression does not influence cell-type composition. These results are a valuable resource for understanding the mechanisms underlying sex differences in brain function and the relationship between sex and neurological disorders. —Mattia Maroso

Structured Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Sex differences in brain-related health outcomes may be a consequence of differences in gene expression, which are likely to be influenced by both sex chromosome complement and circulating hormone levels.

RATIONALE

Most current knowledge of molecular brain sex differences relies on studies of bulk tissue or isolated brain regions. We present a large-scale single-cell analysis of transcriptomic sex differences in the adult human brain, using 169 samples from 15 females (age 26 to 71 years) and 15 males (age 27 to 78 years) across six cortical regions, selected on the basis of in vivo neuroimaging measures of sex-biased volume.

RESULT

We found that sex effects on gene expression are highly patterned across cortical regions, cell types, and genes. They are most pronounced in (i) multiple cell types in the fusiform cortex (linked to male-biased volume and sex-biased behaviors); (ii) oligodendrocytes, astrocytes, and excitatory neurons across regions; and (iii) a subset of sex chromosome and autosomal genes. More than 3000 distinct genes exhibit sex-biased expression, with 133 genes (119 autosomal) showing consistent sex differences across all region × cell type combinations. Sex chromosome genes show the largest sex differences in expression, driven by conserved X-Y gametologs, cell type–specific biases in certain X- and Y-linked genes, and escape from X-inactivation—with the list of known escapees substantially expanded through our single-cell allele-specific expression analysis. Broader effects of sex on autosomal expression are captured in 13 core signatures with varying cell type versus region specificity. These signatures are (i) shaped by regional differences in cortical metabolism and laminar architecture, (ii) enriched for diverse cellular compartments and biological processes, (iii) regulated by sex steroids and X-linked transcription factors, and (iv) linked to sex-specific genetic risk factors in sex-biased neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases.

CONCLUSION

This study substantially advances the breadth, depth, and granularity of knowledge on sex differences in the human brain and provides a new open data resource to support future research. Future studies will be needed to illuminate when sex differences emerge during development and whether they are consistent across populations.

[ Sex differences in the human brain at cell type resolution. ]

Abstract

Sex differences in neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and neurodegenerative disease susceptibility may arise from sex chromosome and hormonal influences on cell type–specific gene expression. We present a single-cell transcriptomic analysis of adult human cortex performed using 169 samples from 15 females and 15 males (age 26 to 78 years) across six regions selected according to their sex-biased volumes. Sex-based analysis identified the strongest differences in the fusiform cortex, glia, and excitatory neurons and among sex-chromosome genes. More than 3000 genes showed sex-biased expression, including 133 with consistent effects across regions and cell types. Core autosomal signatures linked sex differences to cortical architecture, hormone-responsive regulation, and genetic risk for sex-biased brain disorders. This study advances our understanding of sex differences in human brains and provides a valuable resource to support future research.

==

By: Payton McNabb

Published: Mar 19, 2026

Polling shows women are more likely than men to back male participation in female sports, as fear of backlash and social stigma leads many women to suppress obvious truths are the expense of their own safety.

In 2022, I suffered a traumatic brain injury from a spike by a biological male who was allowed to play on the opposing girls’ volleyball team. The force from the hit was unlike anything I’d experienced from female opponents, and the injuries I sustained ultimately ended my career. Three years later, I still battle headaches and cognitive issues. 

You’d think that women, even more than men, would be aghast at this. After all, women are the ones who know intimately—from a young age at that—how vulnerable we are against men who are bigger and stronger than us and capable of overpowering us. 

But according to a recent study, women are actually less likely than men to support policies that ban males from women’s sports. Per James Nuzzo on X and Substack, multiple polls from 2015 to 2025 in the U.S., UK, and Canada show that women consistently show higher support than men for allowing trans-identified males to compete in female categories. 

In survey after survey—Gallup, YouGov, and others—women’s support for permitting men in women’s sports edges out men’s, even as overall approval for permitting men in women’s sports has declined sharply over time. It’s a pattern that defies intuition: the group most impacted by unfair competition, safety risks, and lost opportunities is the one more inclined to accommodate it.

How did we get here? 

For the past decade and a half, the dominant narrative—from schools, mainstream media, social media, colleges, and basically every mainstream institution—has framed any concern about biological males in women’s spaces as “transphobic.” In many social circles, even questioning the concept of “gender identity” means you’re somehow invalidating someone’s existence. After all, good, compassionate women are supposed to support inclusion, right?

Of course, “inclusion” only applies to those who fall in line. Dissidents are not included in the slightest. Instead, we are called “TERFs” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), bullies, and bigots, ostracized not only from friend groups but from mainstream society itself. Raising complaints about a man in the women’s bathroom at college can get you kicked out of your sorority, as I was, and challenging ideas about gender that were fringe positions not long ago can get you smeared and attacked online. 

Add to that the guilt that too often accompanies the decision to buck the Left’s idea of empathy. Gender activists have convinced far too many that if we don’t affirm a man who claims to be a woman, if we don’t let him into our spaces, if we don’t risk being injured by him, he might withdraw into a depression, or worse, commit suicide—an unfortunately persistent myth promoted by activists.

Women are inherently wired to be communal and we are wired to be nurturers. We want to minimize conflict and maximize harmony and empathy. We don’t want to be shunned. But even more than that, we don’t want to hurt the vulnerable. 

Now, it’s silly to say that a 6’0” man who wants to join women’s contact sports is somehow “vulnerable” while the women he is competing against are oppressors, but the topsy-turvy language of gender ideology, having infiltrated society, has convinced polite society that up is down and down is up. 

When activists frame the choice as being between “protecting the transgender community” and “being bigots who hate those who look different,” it’s not shocking that women would default to the former. 

Indeed, gender ideology weaponizes the best of women’s nature against our actual, sex-based interests. The problem is that while most women (and most Americans) have been inundated with gender ideology propaganda, they probably haven’t seen the injuries up close, or seen the numbers on how male puberty confers lasting advantages in strength, speed, and power that hormone suppression doesn’t fully erase. And that’s before the social worries, one of which is: that speaking up could hurt someone else’s feelings—or their own reputation. So many women nod along, suppress their instincts, and publicly affirm what feels like the “kind” position. 

But there is no kindness in lying to ourselves or others, or in putting women like myself in vulnerable positions that get us injured by men who never should have been in our spaces. 

Kindness, ultimately, can only be found in truth, and the truth is that men cannot become women, no matter how they identify. Women’s sports were fortified under Title IX precisely because sex-based differences matter for fair competition. To reject Title IX undermines the very equity we’ve fought for. 

By: Steve Stewart-Williams

Published: Nov 12, 2025

The War on Sex Differences

The evolutionary explanation for sex differences is deeply satisfying in the way that the best scientific theories always are – if, that is, you’re not horrified by the idea of evolved sex differences. As mentioned already, though, some people are genuinely horrified. Many suffer from what we might call dimorphism dysphoria: They’re deeply uncomfortable with the suggestion that men and women differ above the neck, and especially with the possibility that the differences might come from nature rather than nurture.

This discomfort underlies what I call the war on sex differences. This “war” – yes, it’s an overstatement – can be seen in every nook and cranny of modern life, from parents fretting about their daughter’s love of dolls, to bans on gender stereotypes in children’s textbooks and ads on TV, to efforts to achieve a 50:50 sex ratio in every desirable profession where men outnumber women. In fact, as I’m writing these words, even the grammar checker on my word processor is getting in on the act: Whenever I use the phrase “men and women,” it warns me that I should avoid these gendered terms, and consider using “people” instead. Not a helpful suggestion when I’m writing a book about sex differences…

In certain circles, then, sex differences are about as welcome as the plague. Needless to say, not everyone feels this way; if they did, there’d be nothing for those who do feel this way to wage war on. And as mentioned in the last excerpt, some people lean in the opposite direction: Rather than playing down or denying the differences, they hype them up and moralize them. Thus, as we dig deeper into these issues, it would be useful to equip ourselves with some technical terms to help bring order to the chaos.

We’ll start with a pair of terms coined by the psychologists Rachel Hare-Mustin and Jeanne Marecek, who argued that two major biases distort the discussion of sex differences: the alpha bias and the beta bias. The alpha bias is the tendency to exaggerate sex differences; the beta bias is the tendency to minimize them. Both can be found in the culture, but it’s fair to say, I think, that in the modern Western world, the beta bias has the upper hand.

Nowhere is this truer than in my own natural habitat of academia. Many academics are wary of sex differences, and some have an intellectual allergy to them. According to an old joke, everyone knows that men and women are different… except social scientists. Plenty of research reveals the truth in the jest. One study, for example, found that social scientists are more likely than civilians to chalk up sex differences to nurture rather than nature, and that this even extends to differences between hens and roosters. As we’ll see later, even when it comes to humans, the evidence sides with the civilians, making this one area where laypeople have a firmer grasp on reality than many alleged experts – and one area where academia seems to impair people’s understanding of the world rather than improving it.

[ Continued… (paywall) ]

==

Has also been called "neocreationism."

By: Katja Grace

Published: May 4, 2026

m pretty annoyed today, for nominal reasons ranging between ‘petty’ and ‘doesn’t even make sense’. I’m not entirely sure how or if to take oneself seriously when one has such absurd grievances. But that’s a question for another time—I’m here now to tell you about my one potentially valid peeve.

I understand that gender is complicated and difficult, for the whole species (and honestly probably more so for some other species). And it can be hard to tell exactly if anyone is behaving badly regarding it, at least in my modern bubble. Maybe women just aren’t that into designing programming languages? Maybe the thing I’m saying is just boring and a man is saying a more interesting thing?

But a thing that is undeniable is that women want to open jars, dammit! What’s your nuanced explanation there, Bonne Maman? Does the proper amount of friction for maintaining spread safety fall just between the male and female human grip strength distributions?

This study suggests that would be about 400N Fmax (though this would not avert most elite female athletes acquiring jam, see second figure, and the pictured participants are young adults):

The distributions are really surprisingly not-overlapping!

90% of females produced less force than 95% of males. Though female athletes were significantly stronger (444 N) than their untrained female counterparts, this value corresponded to only the 25th percentile of the male subjects.

We know that men and women have different grip strengths! We know that about half of people are women! Why do so many containers require women asking a man for help in order to open them? (Or carrying around an opening tool or living in a kitchen?)

Yes, strength required to open packaging ranges across a wide distribution, but I note that very few are impossible for anyone to open, so it seems like some effort somewhere goes into keeping them in the feasible range, and that effort does not seem to care about it being reliably feasible for people like me. I don’t imagine Bonne Maman wants to stop women getting to their jam—I imagine that nobody cares.

I thought about this most when I lived in a group house with a shared bulk stash of Gatorade, and any time my woman housemate or I wanted to drink a red one we’d have to ask a guy to open it for us. But these days I also often hurt my hands opening (or failing to open) things, and while I’m sure I’m low in the female grip strength distribution—and may also be high on the ‘unreasonable anger about anything nearby when my hands are hurt’ distribution—I don’t think it’s just a me issue, and in the moment it always feels like a ‘fuck you, raspberry jam isn’t meant for you’.

––

Abstract

Hand-grip strength has been identified as one limiting factor for manual lifting and carrying loads. To obtain epidemiologically relevant hand-grip strength data for pre-employment screening, we determined maximal isometric hand-grip strength in 1,654 healthy men and 533 healthy women aged 20–25 years. Moreover, to assess the potential margins for improvement in hand-grip strength of women by training, we studied 60 highly trained elite female athletes from sports known to require high hand-grip forces (judo, handball). Maximal isometric hand-grip force was recorded over 15 s using a handheld hand-grip ergometer. Biometric parameters included lean body mass (LBM) and hand dimensions. Mean maximal hand-grip strength showed the expected clear difference between men (541 N) and women (329 N). Less expected was the gender related distribution of hand-grip strength: 90% of females produced less force than 95% of males. Though female athletes were significantly stronger (444 N) than their untrained female counterparts, this value corresponded to only the 25th percentile of the male subjects. Hand-grip strength was linearly correlated with LBM. Furthermore, both relative hand-grip strength parameters (F max/body weight and F max/LBM) did not show any correlation to hand dimensions. The present findings show that the differences in hand-grip strength of men and women are larger than previously reported. An appreciable difference still remains when using lean body mass as reference. The results of female national elite athletes even indicate that the strength level attainable by extremely high training will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men.

==

By: Lisa Britton

Published: Apr 23, 2026

I’m exhausted by it. Every time a field like tech, finance, engineering, or even podcasts tilts toward male success, the cultural narrative kicks in: This is sexist! This is exclusionary! This must be fixed! Yet no one bats an eye when nursing, teaching, therapy or veterinary medicine are overwhelmingly female. The double standard is frustrating, and it’s doing real damage. We’ve spent decades treating male ambition not as a force that built civilization, but as a problem to be solved. It’s time to stop.

Take the podcasting world, which has become the latest battleground in this war. Critics frame the success of male-hosted shows like the ones led by Joe Rogan, Theo Vonn, Chris Williamson and Andrew Huberman as some kind of “manosphere” conspiracy, implying women are being edged out. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a piece talking about the male dominance in top podcasts and cheered on a new show from Maria Sharapova spotlighting “ambitious women.” What’s conveniently downplayed is the long list of massively popular female-hosted podcasts that thrive today—shows that have huge audiences of women and, in many cases, promote an open contempt for men.

The truth is simpler and less sinister than the narrative that’s being pushed: anyone can start a podcast. From my bedroom, right now, I could launch five! Equipment costs next to nothing, distribution is free, and the audience decides what rises. If men dominate the top charts, it’s because they’re connecting with listeners, many of them men, who crave unfiltered conversation on topics like business, politics, philosophy, and even personal responsibility.

But the podcast panic is just one example of a deeper problem. For decades, we’ve systematically demonized male ambition under the banner of “equity.” In schools, we pour resources into girls’ STEM programs, leadership groups, and other career success initiatives while boys are left to fend for themselves. We tell young men to “step up” while simultaneously demanding they “step aside” so women can shine. We urge them to “open up” about their emotions, only to shame them the moment those emotions don’t align with progressive rhetoric. Boys learn early that their drive, their competitiveness, their desire to build and conquer is suspect and something to be shamed away rather than celebrated.

The results of this are predictable and heartbreaking. Young men today are struggling with purpose, direction, motivation and hope. Suicide rates for males remain tragically high. Workforce participation among men in their prime is dropping. A growing group feels angry, bitter, and invisible. We chant about “toxic masculinity” and then act shocked when the boys we raised without positive outlets for their natural energies turn inward or lash out. We’ve told an entire generation of males that their ambition is bad for society, then wonder why so many check out.

This isn’t just cultural self-sabotage—it’s historically illiterate. Let’s be real. Male ambition is the engine that brought humanity out of the dirt and into modernity. Throughout history, men have been driven to protect, provide, and achieve status, often to win the admiration of women and secure their place in the social order. That drive built cities, invented technologies, crossed oceans, and even split the atom—with the love, help and support of women, of course.

Nikola Tesla, the visionary inventor and a mind a century ahead of his time, understood this. I’ve written about his views on men and women before, and I believe he was always on point. He argued that much of our progress stemmed from men’s deep-seated desire to provide and impress, and he worried that forcing men and women into identical roles would stifle the ambition that powers innovation. Tesla saw the complementarity of the sexes, not their sameness.

Camille Paglia, the brilliant and fearless cultural critic who I’ve admired for years, put it even more bluntly: If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts. She wasn’t insulting women but stating a truth about our evolutionary paths. Women, on average, excel at nurturing, relationship-building, managing and sustaining communities. Men, on average, have driven the innovation, provision, risk-taking, and large-scale problem-solving that define our progress. Both are amazing and essential for humanity. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make us more enlightened; it makes us delusional.

We’re living in the world male ambition built. The phones we use to tweet about “the patriarchy,” the airplanes that let us travel and post on Instagram, the medical advances that slashed maternal mortality, and the internet that allows anti-men memes to go viral are the fruits of restless, ambitious men who refused to accept the status quo. To demonize their ambition while enjoying its benefits is the height of ingratitude.

And yet here we are, in an economy that now increasingly rewards feminine-coded traits like collaboration and nurturing. Male-dominated sectors like manufacturing and construction are shrinking or being automated away. Women have surged into higher education and the white-collar workforce, which is wonderful. But instead of cheering male excellence in the areas where men still lead, we shame it. We frame every male success as a woman’s loss. Every boardroom with more men than women becomes proof of systemic bias rather than evidence of different interests, risk tolerances, or life choices. This zero-sum thinking is poison.

I think the truth is more hopeful: men’s successes are not women’s failures. Our fates are intertwined!

A society that produces strong, ambitious, successful men is a society that creates safer streets, more stable families, greater prosperity, and more opportunity for everyone—including women. When men have purpose and direction, they build wealth that funds things like schools and hospitals, curing diseases. They create technologies that ease women’s lives. They defend the borders and communities that allow us all to thrive and be safe.

The belief that we must tear men down to lift women up is not equality; it’s self-defeating spite.

We need a narrative change, and we need it now. We have to stop teaching boys that their ambition is toxic and start teaching them that it’s noble (when channeled responsibly.) We should celebrate male excellence in male-dominated fields just like we celebrate female excellence in female-dominated ones. We should provide boys the same targeted support and encouragement we’ve given girls for decades. And we should reject the lie that the sexes are interchangeable.

We don’t have to roll back women’s gains here or suggest women shouldn’t be ambitious, but we should recognize that both sexes flourish when each is allowed to play to its strengths. Women still thrive when men are strong providers and protectors. Men thrive when women value and support their masculinity and drive rather than demonize it. The data on marriage, family formation, and happiness shows us: relationships based on mutual respect for natural differences tend to be more stable and fulfilling.

The alternative is dark. Keep shaming male ambition, and we’ll continue to watch our young men disengage—from education, from work, from society itself. We’ll breed resentment where there should be love and gratitude. And we’ll stall the very progress that lets us debate these issues from the comfort of heated homes and screens.

It’s not too late to change our ways. I’m going to choose gratitude over grievance and complementarity over competition. We can stop punishing boys for being boys and start equipping them to become the men the world still desperately needs. Male ambition built the modern world. The least we can do is stop demonizing the very quality that allowed the complaints about men to go viral in the first place.

The future depends on it, for our sons, our daughters, and every generation that follows. We must support and encourage our boys and men and celebrate their ambition and success—past, present and (hopefully) future…

––

Nobody's keeping females out; they just aren't interested. Google is desperate to hire more females. Nobody's preventing females from doing an AI startup, and nobody's stripping females of venture capital funding, as we saw with the fraudster Elizabeth Holmes, who had everybody under the sun shoveling billions of dollars at her.

By: Greg

Published: Apr 19, 2026

On March 26, the IOC confirmed: the women’s category is for biological females. Their FAQ also states there’s a performance gap before puberty. This thread may be helpful for @icons_women @ICFSport @SportSEENuk and others

Let’s look at the data. 🧵

To set the stage, decades of youth fitness data show boys outperform girls in strength, speed, and endurance before puberty. Push-ups. Pull-ups. Running. etc. Consistent across studies. As shown in the great meta analysis by @jamesnuzzo

“But that’s just fitness testing.”

Right. And fitness is what drives performance. Stronger, faster, more powerful athletes don’t suddenly lose that advantage in competition.

Ignore the title and look at the data in this paper by Handelsman evaluating actual sport data. Same story.

Prepubertal boys:

Swim ~1–2% faster

Run ~3% faster

Jump ~6% farther

This swimming example by @jwsenefeld & @DrMJoyner:

At age 9 → girls slightly ahead at the very top

By age 10 → boys pull ahead • ~2.5% faster (top 5) • ~1% faster (depth)

The gap emerges early—and stays.

100-1500m in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups in USA Track & Field national championships from 2016-2023

Boys ages 8–10 ran ~5% faster than girls

Across every distance

Another study by @jwsenefeld & @DrMJoyner evaluating the top 50 US youth performances across events (ages 7–12):

~4% faster running

~5–7% farther jumping

Different events. Same pattern.

In USA Club Swimming championships from 2016–2023:

Boys were statistically significantly faster in 8 out of 12 event events (1–3%).

Girls weren’t significantly faster in any.

Evaluating finalists in shot put, javelin, and long jump in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups in USA Track & Field national championships from 2016-2023 shows even bigger gaps:

Boys vs girls

+6–32% in throws

+4–5% in jumps

Another paper by @jwsenefeld & @DrMJoyner

By age 7 → boys already dominate top 10 running lists By age 12 → same in swimming

Even top 100 lists skew in favor of males before puberty

Christensen shows that it’s not just because more boys than girls participate:

Boys age 6–12 run ~8% faster over 1600 m

Modeling shows it’s not due to participation rates

@TLexercise shows that even skill sports the difference is real:

Boys (10–12) outperform girls in disc golf

Accuracy

Distance

Scoring

More field event data shot put, javelin, and long jump in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups all participants in USATF regional championships:

Throws and Jumps: +8–55% in favor of boys

Across all athletes, not just finalists

More track event data 100-1500m in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups all participants in USATF regional championships:

Boys ran faster than girls in all events by 4-6%

Different country (Australia), same result:

70-400 m running in all athletes in the 7, 8, and 9 year old age groups in Little Athletics NSW 2024. Boys ran faster than girls in all events by 4~5%.

Across sports.

Across countries.

Across datasets.

The pattern is clear: Sex differences in performance exist before puberty in foundational sport skills – running, jumping, throwing, and swimming.

The IOC didn’t invent this.

They acknowledged it.