> If you are going to have any benchmark This is actually why IMO saying women are 65% as strong as the average man is the better framing. It gives you an imme

> If you are going to have any benchmark This is actually why IMO saying women are 65% as strong as the average man is the better framing. It gives you an immediate, practical, and tangible goal. If the force required to do a given operation is acceptable for men and not acceptable for women, then we don’t need to reduce the force by 100x, we need to reduce it by 1.5x, which is not very much. Talking about the standard deviation doesn’t give you a usable result, while talking about the ratio of means does. BTW this argument should be moot. It’s very, very poor safety design to suggest that controlling a vehicle or doing anything else safety critical should require more than 50% of my maximum strength. My own strength varies considerably based on how much I have to use it. I can’t maintain my max strength if I have to do it repeatedly, and it will affect my ability to think if I have to use my max strength in a crisis situation. There simply should not be controls that require more force than most women can apply, not even close.