| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... 10:21 - Jun 21 with 8078 views | itfcjoe |
....trans women from competing in women's events.
It is now expected that World Athletics will follow in doing so as well ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/61865789 )
I'm not sure what the FIFA position is, but they released conflicting statements about it previously.
It does seem that the tide is turning back towards fairness in women's sports rather than inclusivity, which I personally think is right - it is impossible to square that circle of inclusivity and fairness without just destroying women's sports
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 08:39 - Jun 22 with 810 views | yesjohn99 |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 20:17 - Jun 21 by Lord_Lucan |
I think if they are technically born female then they can compete.
if they were born male with a cock and balls then they can't
I hope I haven't over simplified things.
Heaven forbid! |
This is all that needs to be said. No more, no less. |  | | |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 09:51 - Jun 22 with 747 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 07:20 - Jun 22 by itfcjoe |
Your first paragraph is utter b0ll0x - you won’t find posts from me disrespecting womens sport, don’t let that stand in the way of your smugness.
And the second post is rubbish too, the science is clear in what male puberty does, testerone suppressent simply does not remove the advantages of male puberty in lung capacity, vo2 max, bone density, heart size, haemoglobin production etc.
Read your own link also:
“ The effects of longer duration therapy (36 months) in eliciting further decrements in these measures are unclear due to paucity of data. Notwithstanding, values for strength, LBM and muscle area in transwomen remain above those of cisgender women, even after 36 months of hormone therapy.” [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 7:22]
|
You are not who I’d lump in with the group in the first para, but a lot I would are in here.
I have read that link. It shows hormone therapy reduces that advantage and it still exists somewhat after 36 months. But…
- That’s from hormone therapy alone without other treatment. How would puberty blockers factor in? Surgery?
- 36 months is the current limit of testing. Say we do further research and discover after 5 years all that advantage is gone? A blanket ban is gonna look a bit discriminatory, isn’t it?
- The actual benchmark of how much an advantage puberty gives a transperson is well up for debate (in general let alone to specific activities), as mentioned science has made no solid conclusions. Is anyone on TWTD more educated than scientific research that’s still in the air?
- Even if there is a slight advantage, there’s also the fact, as many have mentioned, the world is full of genetic advantages outside of born biological sex.
- Training and diet is a very hard thing to factor into the above too, as not all methods or disaplines of fitness are equal. Someone who goes to the gym 3 times a week for a year on one diet could for example be fitter than someone who goes 5 times a fortnight for 2 years and used to smoke. There are mitigating factors in most things from past/present behaviours that still aren’t being factored into any research done.
I know for many the idea a middle ground may exist is challenging, and that take has almost certainly came from ignorance or transphobic angles in the media. There a small drop of sensible discussion here but a lot is largely failing to factor any of the above to form a view.
FWIW I don’t have an answer on sports competition for now either, but happy clapping a ban is gonna be a dreadful look in the near future. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 10:03]
|  |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 09:59 - Jun 22 with 735 views | Darth_Koont |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 09:51 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
You are not who I’d lump in with the group in the first para, but a lot I would are in here.
I have read that link. It shows hormone therapy reduces that advantage and it still exists somewhat after 36 months. But…
- That’s from hormone therapy alone without other treatment. How would puberty blockers factor in? Surgery?
- 36 months is the current limit of testing. Say we do further research and discover after 5 years all that advantage is gone? A blanket ban is gonna look a bit discriminatory, isn’t it?
- The actual benchmark of how much an advantage puberty gives a transperson is well up for debate (in general let alone to specific activities), as mentioned science has made no solid conclusions. Is anyone on TWTD more educated than scientific research that’s still in the air?
- Even if there is a slight advantage, there’s also the fact, as many have mentioned, the world is full of genetic advantages outside of born biological sex.
- Training and diet is a very hard thing to factor into the above too, as not all methods or disaplines of fitness are equal. Someone who goes to the gym 3 times a week for a year on one diet could for example be fitter than someone who goes 5 times a fortnight for 2 years and used to smoke. There are mitigating factors in most things from past/present behaviours that still aren’t being factored into any research done.
I know for many the idea a middle ground may exist is challenging, and that take has almost certainly came from ignorance or transphobic angles in the media. There a small drop of sensible discussion here but a lot is largely failing to factor any of the above to form a view.
FWIW I don’t have an answer on sports competition for now either, but happy clapping a ban is gonna be a dreadful look in the near future. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 10:03]
|
Indeed. There’s an important middle ground and more total and far-reaching bans play utterly into the ongoing narrative of marginalising a group who need and deserve much more help and support. Not just in society but in sport too.
Marginalise the dogmatic and bigoted voices instead and let’s talk about the real people this affects. |  |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 09:59 - Jun 22 with 733 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 08:04 - Jun 22 by unbelievablue |
Again, your failure to respond in a civil manner, including lumping everyone together and calling out people for things they've never done, is telling. Div-listed (again). |
Remember when you did this because I said animals don’t deserve to suffer, then followed me round the board for a week encouraging pile ons. Think of how that aged and apply it here too.
You’ve not had much to say about some stuff said in here which is far worse and damaging to a minority already subject to bogeyman scapegoating/violence.
Not to mention, how you choose to react to my posts is your thoughts and actions. I hold no knowledge or responsibility for what goes on in your mind. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 10:06]
| |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:13 - Jun 22 with 722 views | itfcjoe |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 09:51 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
You are not who I’d lump in with the group in the first para, but a lot I would are in here.
I have read that link. It shows hormone therapy reduces that advantage and it still exists somewhat after 36 months. But…
- That’s from hormone therapy alone without other treatment. How would puberty blockers factor in? Surgery?
- 36 months is the current limit of testing. Say we do further research and discover after 5 years all that advantage is gone? A blanket ban is gonna look a bit discriminatory, isn’t it?
- The actual benchmark of how much an advantage puberty gives a transperson is well up for debate (in general let alone to specific activities), as mentioned science has made no solid conclusions. Is anyone on TWTD more educated than scientific research that’s still in the air?
- Even if there is a slight advantage, there’s also the fact, as many have mentioned, the world is full of genetic advantages outside of born biological sex.
- Training and diet is a very hard thing to factor into the above too, as not all methods or disaplines of fitness are equal. Someone who goes to the gym 3 times a week for a year on one diet could for example be fitter than someone who goes 5 times a fortnight for 2 years and used to smoke. There are mitigating factors in most things from past/present behaviours that still aren’t being factored into any research done.
I know for many the idea a middle ground may exist is challenging, and that take has almost certainly came from ignorance or transphobic angles in the media. There a small drop of sensible discussion here but a lot is largely failing to factor any of the above to form a view.
FWIW I don’t have an answer on sports competition for now either, but happy clapping a ban is gonna be a dreadful look in the near future. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 10:03]
|
Science will always be up in the air, there can never be enough research done as things are discovered all the time - but there are a dozen or more highly respected papers, including the one shown which is actually done by a trans athlete, and none of them can show (yet?) that there isn't a significant retained advantage.
There are some areas where the retained advantage is huge, like weightlifting where men are 30-50% stronger than women at the elite end, or nearly every running event where it is 10-18% different.
But where I fall on it is that the burden of proof should be on the science to prove that they should be eligible, and that isn't close to being done - in fact there are no studies which show that the retained advantages aren't significant.
I support a blanket ban until this can be proven, otherwise you will keep ending up in the same situation where people want transwomen included, but then when they do well the pressure ratchets up and they end up as so in the spotlight for a while until they are banned as a temporary measure which will just drag on.
The worst nightmare for the Olympics will be women's podiums with transwomen standing on them, it will be a terrible look for all involved and in my view will also set any trans cause back because of the backlash it will bring.
To go through points though:
- If they have puberty blockers they will be able to compete, as they won't have gone through male puberty which is the trigger.
- I think covered above, but if that is the case and it shows no advantage amongst scientific research papers then at that point they should be admitted
- The benchmark isn't really up to date at the elite level, because the top men and top women in the world will both be at the cutting edge of diet, training, investment, etc that it's relatively safe to say that the world leading times are what men and women are currently able to do physically
- Covered in previous point | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:20 - Jun 22 with 705 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:13 - Jun 22 by itfcjoe |
Science will always be up in the air, there can never be enough research done as things are discovered all the time - but there are a dozen or more highly respected papers, including the one shown which is actually done by a trans athlete, and none of them can show (yet?) that there isn't a significant retained advantage.
There are some areas where the retained advantage is huge, like weightlifting where men are 30-50% stronger than women at the elite end, or nearly every running event where it is 10-18% different.
But where I fall on it is that the burden of proof should be on the science to prove that they should be eligible, and that isn't close to being done - in fact there are no studies which show that the retained advantages aren't significant.
I support a blanket ban until this can be proven, otherwise you will keep ending up in the same situation where people want transwomen included, but then when they do well the pressure ratchets up and they end up as so in the spotlight for a while until they are banned as a temporary measure which will just drag on.
The worst nightmare for the Olympics will be women's podiums with transwomen standing on them, it will be a terrible look for all involved and in my view will also set any trans cause back because of the backlash it will bring.
To go through points though:
- If they have puberty blockers they will be able to compete, as they won't have gone through male puberty which is the trigger.
- I think covered above, but if that is the case and it shows no advantage amongst scientific research papers then at that point they should be admitted
- The benchmark isn't really up to date at the elite level, because the top men and top women in the world will both be at the cutting edge of diet, training, investment, etc that it's relatively safe to say that the world leading times are what men and women are currently able to do physically
- Covered in previous point |
As I said, I’m not gonna do this today as busy, but “significant” is the problem here. Significant is suggestive and means little, particularly when you put in the above factors, when research is limited and in early stages.
You aren’t qualified to make that conclusion or statement. Arguably no one is because we don’t have the data or the research. We haven’t tested enough factors or set a framework that mitigates all the factors listed.
Not to mention, a lot of this research we see quoted in news at present comes from the same Tufton Street think tanks or SuperPAC lobbyists that supported Brexit and regularly pump half-baked evidence into the world to divide/conquer or get paid to give a right wing government the conclusions they already decided. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:31 - Jun 22 with 687 views | itfcjoe |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:20 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
As I said, I’m not gonna do this today as busy, but “significant” is the problem here. Significant is suggestive and means little, particularly when you put in the above factors, when research is limited and in early stages.
You aren’t qualified to make that conclusion or statement. Arguably no one is because we don’t have the data or the research. We haven’t tested enough factors or set a framework that mitigates all the factors listed.
Not to mention, a lot of this research we see quoted in news at present comes from the same Tufton Street think tanks or SuperPAC lobbyists that supported Brexit and regularly pump half-baked evidence into the world to divide/conquer or get paid to give a right wing government the conclusions they already decided. |
You can take the word 'significant' out and the view is the same, if they are retaining any advantage it is unfair on women competing in sport.
And your last para is unfair and untrue, one of the main sports scientists who follows this is a South African guy who was part of Caster Semenya's team in her IAAF defence at the time and is very much the expert in the field - the problem is he has to end up arguing against people who don't want to listen to the science because are more interested in inclusivity than fairness. That's a position people will quite rightly and fairly take, but there is no way of getting the science to support that position - its' a facts vs feelings debate. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:39 - Jun 22 with 662 views | Darth_Koont |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:31 - Jun 22 by itfcjoe |
You can take the word 'significant' out and the view is the same, if they are retaining any advantage it is unfair on women competing in sport.
And your last para is unfair and untrue, one of the main sports scientists who follows this is a South African guy who was part of Caster Semenya's team in her IAAF defence at the time and is very much the expert in the field - the problem is he has to end up arguing against people who don't want to listen to the science because are more interested in inclusivity than fairness. That's a position people will quite rightly and fairly take, but there is no way of getting the science to support that position - its' a facts vs feelings debate. |
You’re saying the science only points one way. That’s not true. Even the physiological impact of long-term hormone therapy vs. performance doesn’t show that clear and unfair advantages remain to a significant degree.
But more importantly, a statistical analysis shows that this isn’t borne out in the real world. I take you back to your original assertion that this will destroy women’s sport but that’s pure perception and scaremongering if we look at the empirical evidence.
So science by all means but the radicalised and emotive stuff can and should be left at the door. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:40 - Jun 22 with 661 views | unbelievablue |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 09:59 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
Remember when you did this because I said animals don’t deserve to suffer, then followed me round the board for a week encouraging pile ons. Think of how that aged and apply it here too.
You’ve not had much to say about some stuff said in here which is far worse and damaging to a minority already subject to bogeyman scapegoating/violence.
Not to mention, how you choose to react to my posts is your thoughts and actions. I hold no knowledge or responsibility for what goes on in your mind. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 10:06]
|
Sorry for doing that, wasn't fair at the time.
Don't think the second paragraph really applies to me at all, and if you read what I've said on this thread, I've aligned way more with what you're arguing than Joe. |  |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:48 - Jun 22 with 635 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:40 - Jun 22 by unbelievablue |
Sorry for doing that, wasn't fair at the time.
Don't think the second paragraph really applies to me at all, and if you read what I've said on this thread, I've aligned way more with what you're arguing than Joe. |
I’ve not named anyone specifically or applied anything to all in this thread. Again, I cannot be responsible for how you read things or the conclusions you make if you decide what I said over what I actually said. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:51 - Jun 22 with 638 views | unbelievablue |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:48 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
I’ve not named anyone specifically or applied anything to all in this thread. Again, I cannot be responsible for how you read things or the conclusions you make if you decide what I said over what I actually said. |
I was referring to this...
"You’ve not had much to say about some stuff said in here which is far worse and damaging to a minority already subject to bogeyman scapegoating/violence."
...and pointing out that I've abhorred transphobia across multiple threads and argued against users/friends who seem to have what I consider an unhealthy obsession with the trans women in sports 'issue'. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:51 - Jun 22 with 631 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:31 - Jun 22 by itfcjoe |
You can take the word 'significant' out and the view is the same, if they are retaining any advantage it is unfair on women competing in sport.
And your last para is unfair and untrue, one of the main sports scientists who follows this is a South African guy who was part of Caster Semenya's team in her IAAF defence at the time and is very much the expert in the field - the problem is he has to end up arguing against people who don't want to listen to the science because are more interested in inclusivity than fairness. That's a position people will quite rightly and fairly take, but there is no way of getting the science to support that position - its' a facts vs feelings debate. |
What I see is a moving benchmark because you said something untrue. If you remove the word (which was designed to drag feelings and opinion into debate as “significant” is a subjective word, ironically) what you are saying becomes a debate of all the bullet point I posted above.
The science simply isn’t there for you or I to comment. I’m not sure how many more times I can say that. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:54 - Jun 22 with 615 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:51 - Jun 22 by unbelievablue |
I was referring to this...
"You’ve not had much to say about some stuff said in here which is far worse and damaging to a minority already subject to bogeyman scapegoating/violence."
...and pointing out that I've abhorred transphobia across multiple threads and argued against users/friends who seem to have what I consider an unhealthy obsession with the trans women in sports 'issue'. |
But this is a classic NeoLib fallacy Darth and I continually point out.
Thinking or agreeing with something yet spending more time beating those one claims to agree with over how one makes their point does more for the other side who you disagree with. A lot of the board right wingers have very little factual argument but will latch onto stuff like this as a reason they are justified. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:57 - Jun 22 with 616 views | unbelievablue |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:54 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
But this is a classic NeoLib fallacy Darth and I continually point out.
Thinking or agreeing with something yet spending more time beating those one claims to agree with over how one makes their point does more for the other side who you disagree with. A lot of the board right wingers have very little factual argument but will latch onto stuff like this as a reason they are justified. |
If I did spend more time doing the latter, I'd agree. I don't.
Much like how you feel I have misinterpreted your comments earlier, the same is perhaps being done here. I know my position (neither right wing, nor neoliberal) and I'm comfortable with it. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 11:13 - Jun 22 with 579 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:57 - Jun 22 by unbelievablue |
If I did spend more time doing the latter, I'd agree. I don't.
Much like how you feel I have misinterpreted your comments earlier, the same is perhaps being done here. I know my position (neither right wing, nor neoliberal) and I'm comfortable with it. |
You threatened to div list me for standing up against a selection of people in this thread who have form demonstrating their low regard for women (even if they believe sexualising their looks isn’t sexist, in many contexts they’ve done it in I’d say it walks a line), now claiming to champion women despite most the reasons they share for agreeing with this news being rooted in their own transphobia or transphobic narratives they’ve been fed through subversion. Not to mention a lot of the anti-trans rhetoric is unfairly aimed at transwomen, which has both sexist and homophobic historical context.
If you are pointing my direction as the problem in this thread, or assume I say things through mass generalisation rather than it being aimed at specific posters without naming names, I think you’re really going the wrong way about it.
Equal rights weren’t achieved through everyone playing nice, yet still to this day the enemy always seems to be those who protest the wrong way. It’s counter productive if you agree with the reasoning behind the statement and simply feeds the side you disagree with. XR blocking roads didn’t take long to be proven a justified action when you look at your energy bill. It will look even worse when the climate emergency starts to kill in numbers and no one can protest without prison time being the result. You know who helped that happen? Those who agreed with the why but complained about the how.
It’s also a weird hill to die on, and a large reason why posters like Lowhouse get stick. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 11:17]
| |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 11:18 - Jun 22 with 571 views | unbelievablue |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 11:13 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
You threatened to div list me for standing up against a selection of people in this thread who have form demonstrating their low regard for women (even if they believe sexualising their looks isn’t sexist, in many contexts they’ve done it in I’d say it walks a line), now claiming to champion women despite most the reasons they share for agreeing with this news being rooted in their own transphobia or transphobic narratives they’ve been fed through subversion. Not to mention a lot of the anti-trans rhetoric is unfairly aimed at transwomen, which has both sexist and homophobic historical context.
If you are pointing my direction as the problem in this thread, or assume I say things through mass generalisation rather than it being aimed at specific posters without naming names, I think you’re really going the wrong way about it.
Equal rights weren’t achieved through everyone playing nice, yet still to this day the enemy always seems to be those who protest the wrong way. It’s counter productive if you agree with the reasoning behind the statement and simply feeds the side you disagree with. XR blocking roads didn’t take long to be proven a justified action when you look at your energy bill. It will look even worse when the climate emergency starts to kill in numbers and no one can protest without prison time being the result. You know who helped that happen? Those who agreed with the why but complained about the how.
It’s also a weird hill to die on, and a large reason why posters like Lowhouse get stick. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 11:17]
|
I very much appreciate where you are coming from. Perhaps as you suggest I misread what you were getting at - to me it certainly felt like you lumped a number of people into a category I didn't think was broadly applicable.
Re:
"Equal rights weren’t achieved through everyone playing nice, yet still to this day the enemy always seems to be those who protest the wrong way. It’s counter productive if you agree with the reasoning behind the statement and simply feeds the side you disagree with. It’s also a weird hill to die on, and a large reason why posters like Lowhouse get stick."
I've always thought that it's possible to support the cause and nitpick the methods at the same time, and there is a long history of that within equal rights movements. Indeed, most of those movements were built off of years of internal struggle about the 'right' or most effective way to protest. Maybe that nit-picking emboldens some of the less enlightened on the other side, but I tend to think the net outcome is better for having had those discussions.
This is clearly a difference of opinion about how to go about protest/activism/debate and neither of us are likely to be won round, so might be best to leave it. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 11:20]
| |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 11:57 - Jun 22 with 507 views | Churchman |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 11:13 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
You threatened to div list me for standing up against a selection of people in this thread who have form demonstrating their low regard for women (even if they believe sexualising their looks isn’t sexist, in many contexts they’ve done it in I’d say it walks a line), now claiming to champion women despite most the reasons they share for agreeing with this news being rooted in their own transphobia or transphobic narratives they’ve been fed through subversion. Not to mention a lot of the anti-trans rhetoric is unfairly aimed at transwomen, which has both sexist and homophobic historical context.
If you are pointing my direction as the problem in this thread, or assume I say things through mass generalisation rather than it being aimed at specific posters without naming names, I think you’re really going the wrong way about it.
Equal rights weren’t achieved through everyone playing nice, yet still to this day the enemy always seems to be those who protest the wrong way. It’s counter productive if you agree with the reasoning behind the statement and simply feeds the side you disagree with. XR blocking roads didn’t take long to be proven a justified action when you look at your energy bill. It will look even worse when the climate emergency starts to kill in numbers and no one can protest without prison time being the result. You know who helped that happen? Those who agreed with the why but complained about the how.
It’s also a weird hill to die on, and a large reason why posters like Lowhouse get stick. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 11:17]
|
I’ve not seen ‘people in this thread who have form demonstrating their low regard for women’.
Perhaps you can simply list their names to make it easy. |  | | |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:24 - Jun 22 with 477 views | itfcjoe |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 10:51 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
What I see is a moving benchmark because you said something untrue. If you remove the word (which was designed to drag feelings and opinion into debate as “significant” is a subjective word, ironically) what you are saying becomes a debate of all the bullet point I posted above.
The science simply isn’t there for you or I to comment. I’m not sure how many more times I can say that. |
The science is there, there are a dozen peer reviewed papers that show Transwomen continue to retain the advantage from the male puberty - you even linked one earlier in the thread by a trans athlete who confirmed this!
You can't keep saying the science isn't there, if you disagree with it the science will never be there because there will never be enough - everything that is there states the advantage is retained.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
Summary The 15—31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.
https://equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Transgender%20International%20Research%2
This evidence suggests that parity in physical performance in relation to gender-affected sport cannot be achieved for transgender people in female sport through testosterone suppression. Theoretical estimation in contact and collision sport indicate injury risk is likely to be increased for female competitors.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
The effects of longer duration therapy (36 months) in eliciting further decrements in these measures are unclear due to paucity of data. Notwithstanding, values for strength, LBM and muscle area in transwomen remain above those of cisgender women, even after 36 months of hormone therapy. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:27 - Jun 22 with 466 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:24 - Jun 22 by itfcjoe |
The science is there, there are a dozen peer reviewed papers that show Transwomen continue to retain the advantage from the male puberty - you even linked one earlier in the thread by a trans athlete who confirmed this!
You can't keep saying the science isn't there, if you disagree with it the science will never be there because there will never be enough - everything that is there states the advantage is retained.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
Summary The 15—31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.
https://equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Transgender%20International%20Research%2
This evidence suggests that parity in physical performance in relation to gender-affected sport cannot be achieved for transgender people in female sport through testosterone suppression. Theoretical estimation in contact and collision sport indicate injury risk is likely to be increased for female competitors.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
The effects of longer duration therapy (36 months) in eliciting further decrements in these measures are unclear due to paucity of data. Notwithstanding, values for strength, LBM and muscle area in transwomen remain above those of cisgender women, even after 36 months of hormone therapy. |
None of these studies confirm your angle or disprove counter points. If you read what’s been posted you’d see that.
Jury is out, to conclude anything from those links would be selective speculation. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:29 - Jun 22 with 461 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 11:57 - Jun 22 by Churchman |
I’ve not seen ‘people in this thread who have form demonstrating their low regard for women’.
Perhaps you can simply list their names to make it easy. |
Why would I? If I did I’d only be moving the debate away from what I care about and doing it on the terms of yourself. There’s plenty other stuff in my posts in this thread to talk about you’ve skipped over after all. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:32 - Jun 22 with 456 views | itfcjoe |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:27 - Jun 22 by monytowbray |
None of these studies confirm your angle or disprove counter points. If you read what’s been posted you’d see that.
Jury is out, to conclude anything from those links would be selective speculation. |
They confirm that transwomen retain benefits and advantages and therefore have an unfair advantage against biological women.
That's it, that's what matters - people entering a category that they retain an unfair advantage in.
It's the thin end of the wedge, if a proper policy isn't in place before it becomes a massive deal then it will end up ruining women's sport | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:33 - Jun 22 with 453 views | unbelievablue |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:32 - Jun 22 by itfcjoe |
They confirm that transwomen retain benefits and advantages and therefore have an unfair advantage against biological women.
That's it, that's what matters - people entering a category that they retain an unfair advantage in.
It's the thin end of the wedge, if a proper policy isn't in place before it becomes a massive deal then it will end up ruining women's sport |
I go on to Crufts, I go, "Can I enter this dog in the Labrador section?" "No." "Why?" "Because it's not a Labrador." "Correct." "Can I enter it in the Alsatian section?" "No. For the same reasons. Now get that dog out of my sight." "Thanks, I will. You've proved my point." And that's Crufts. All right. | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:37 - Jun 22 with 445 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:32 - Jun 22 by itfcjoe |
They confirm that transwomen retain benefits and advantages and therefore have an unfair advantage against biological women.
That's it, that's what matters - people entering a category that they retain an unfair advantage in.
It's the thin end of the wedge, if a proper policy isn't in place before it becomes a massive deal then it will end up ruining women's sport |
The criteria I bullet pointed above really is something you’re going to completely overlook, isn’t it? | |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:39 - Jun 22 with 440 views | monytowbray |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:33 - Jun 22 by unbelievablue |
I go on to Crufts, I go, "Can I enter this dog in the Labrador section?" "No." "Why?" "Because it's not a Labrador." "Correct." "Can I enter it in the Alsatian section?" "No. For the same reasons. Now get that dog out of my sight." "Thanks, I will. You've proved my point." And that's Crufts. All right. |
EDITED FOR WHOOSH. At least you got SB too. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 13:01]
| |
| |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:40 - Jun 22 with 438 views | StokieBlue |
| The International Swimming Organisation has banned.... on 12:33 - Jun 22 by unbelievablue |
I go on to Crufts, I go, "Can I enter this dog in the Labrador section?" "No." "Why?" "Because it's not a Labrador." "Correct." "Can I enter it in the Alsatian section?" "No. For the same reasons. Now get that dog out of my sight." "Thanks, I will. You've proved my point." And that's Crufts. All right. |
I can only assume this didn't sound as bad in your head when you were typing it out.
SB
Edit: Didn't realise it was from The Office. It nicely highlights how things have hopefully moved on from then. [Post edited 22 Jun 2022 12:43]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
