I was just joking with the Rogan gif lol relax I personally couldn't care less.
But if you really don't think there is an advantage look up Renee Richards
Renee Richards is a hilariously bad example as it goes against your viewpoint.
It's been established that male tennis players who can barely break the top 100 barrier will consistently beat top-10 female tennis players. Serena & Venus Williams lost to an out-of-shape male tennis player, Karsten Braasch, who was ranked around 200 in men's tennis at the time (They each played one set against him, losing 6-1, 6-2).
This wasn't an anomaly. I remember, back in the early 90s, a male tennis player named Richard Krajicek caused a little bit of controversy by publicly making the comment, "Eighty percent of the top 100 women are fat pigs who don't deserve equal pay." The reason he said this was because he saw female tennis players as inferior to male tennis players, so he saw it as an insult that they get paid the same as him.......Around that time, I asked a few male tennis players if it's true that female tennis players are inferior to males. They nonchalantly said they sometimes practice with women and it's practically pointless because they're too easy to beat. Too much of a power/speed differential.
Since Renee Richards supposedly had a big advantage, being born male but having undergone a sex change, she should have consistently seeded in the top 10, at the very least, in women's tennis. Instead, the highest ranking she ever achieved in her career was 20th.
For the record, I enjoy watching female tennis far more than male tennis. It's not due to the visuals (I can watch porn for that), but because male tennis is too focused on the serves & power, whereas you get a wider variety of skill-sets with female tennis.......Also, as for Krajicek's statement about equal pay, I feel that, since women's tennis gets about the same viewership as men's tennis, equal pay is deserved. It's not simply about whether one would beat the other, but also based on how much money they can rake in via attendance/viewers/sponsorships.
I've been saying this for awhile. Once his opponent's skill set supersedes his natural advantages he'll lose. He's just not an exceptionally talented fighter.
Which explains why Bob Sapp was able to beat opponents far more skilled than himself, early in his career. When there's a strength/size advantage, it can supercede an opponent's skill-set.......And Sapp's results, later in his career, don't mean much. He wasn't the same fighter early on.
You can try to dismiss the Bob Sapp example by stating the weight advantage he had over his opponents, but that weight advantage would be the equivalent to that of a male's strength advantage over a female's, which falls into the Fallon Fox debate.
Fox's supposed natural advantages simply aren't as extreme as you make them out to be. With the loss of natural male testosterone production (via the sex change op), and with hormone therapy, Fox's hormonal levels are down to that of a female's. Comparing Fallon Fox's physicality to a male athlete is like comparing a 130lb weakling to a built, juiced up roid user.
IMO, the only advantage Fox may have is in bone density. Whatever muscular advantages Fox may have had, pre-op, are gone because Fox's natural physical development decreased (Her muscles atrophied).
Hell, I'd go on record as saying if Fox fought Cyborg, regardless of any skill-set differential, Cyborg would have a strength advantage over Fox.
It doesn't prove anything. most guys who aren't transgender will lose against a female MMA fighter as well.
Most men stand no chance against a top female athlete in any sport but the female athletes have no chance against their male counterparts. for example female olympians are around the level of Division I males; so way better than the vast majority of men but no where near the level of the male olympians.
Lucia Rijker vs Somchai Jaidee dispels that belief of yours.
Rijker, for many years, was considered the greatest female kickboxer of all-time. The majority of her opponents couldn't give her any competition, so a fight was set up between her and Somchai Jaidee, a male kickboxer.
Jaidee knocked Rijker out with ease in 2 rounds. It wasn't competitive, and, when asked during the post-fight interview, Jaidee stated that none of her punches/kicks had any noticeable power......Rijker, herself, was in denial, stating in her post-fight interview that the reason she lost was because she "didn't connect with" her trainer. When Jaidee heard her say that, he asked her how the fight would have been different if Rijker did connect with her trainer. Rijker simply repeated that BS "didn't connect with my trainer" excuse and Jaidee shook his head and let her keep talking.
In a later interview, Rijker stated if she were to fight a male opponent again, he would need to be from a lower weight division to make it fair.
To put that fight into perspective, with so many bullshit "world titles" in the kickboxing world, Jaidee was never able to win a world title in kickboxing, and never broke into the top 10 of his weight division. Meanwhile, Rijker was the greatest of all-time on the women's side.
I will say that with grappling arts/competition (wrestling, judo, etc..), the physical advantages of males over females isn't as pronounced in comparison to most other sports, but it's still there.
If you really feel that way then you wouldn't have a problem with Renan Barao fighting Ronda Rousey since they're both 135ers.
Logic is lost with the majority of people on Sherdog. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them feel that way.
The reality is, an MMA match between the two would be competitive only if Barao had his nutsack & schlong surgically removed, and underwent male-to-female hormone therapy.