[RD] Trans people in sport

[Gorbles]

Nothing magical, just basic human physiology.

Trans women aren't cis men, but at this point I'm repeating a lot of what's already been posted in the thread (which you obviously dug into to get my quote, but didn't do . . . any other reading of).

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Nothing magical, just basic human physiology.

Male and Female Athletic Performance: Worlds Apart

The different physical attributes of males and females have functional consequences for sports-relevant outputs.

quillette.com

Oh cool an article from 3 anti trans people, very normal stuff

 

[Arwon]

I was just thinking this thread needed a link from a fascist website

 

[Gorbles]

Haha I didn't even see it was a Quillette piece. Wow.

 

[Arwon]

Cool stuff, very normal!

 

[Gorbles]

I mean, to be fair, I was asking for evidence throughout the thread. I was just expecting something along the lines of peer-reviewed research, and not a random opinion piece from a publication known for publishing literal hoaxes.

 

[Arwon]

It's not real Science if they don't use skull calipers

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I was just thinking this thread needed a link from a fascist website

Im not racist, now here's a excerpt from the bell curve

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I mean, to be fair, I was asking for evidence throughout the thread. I was just expecting something along the lines of peer-reviewed research, and not a random opinion piece from a publication known for publishing literal hoaxes.

I have cited articles quoting medical journals, but that was glossed over pretty rapidly.

 

[Gorbles]

I have cited articles quoting medical journals, but that was glossed over pretty rapidly.

I had to go back forty pages to find the last major discussion you were involved in, and I scrolled for several pages and found no links. That said, I did find a lot of back and forth between multiple posters (including myself), so I feel comfortable in saying whatever viewpoint you were arguing, it certainly wasn't glossed over.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I don't have the time or inclination to dig it out today, but when I do, I'll dive in again.. I guess I'll see you in about 10 pages or so

Safe to say though, that similar to the abortion debate, and guns.. Everyone's position is almost religious and I don't see this 'debate' swaying anyone.

 

[MrCynical]

I mean, to be fair, I was asking for evidence throughout the thread. I was just expecting something along the lines of peer-reviewed research, and not a random opinion piece from a publication known for publishing literal hoaxes.

While you might not like the opinion piece, it does cite sources that are in peer reviewed research. If you're actually interested in the evidence, rather than merely deflecting, you could, you know - look at them. Say for instance this one:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Covers not only the well documented performance difference between men and women, but also how much of the difference is retained by trans women after twelve months of hormone therapy (see table 4 and subsequent discussion). Answer is unsurprisingly that most of the performance difference is retained. As I've said, the idea that testosterone suppression is a convenient leveller between trans women and cis women is not scientifically supported. Hence why sporting body regulations that are based on the incorrect assumption it is are being identified as unscientific and unfit for purpose.

As I've said, I'm open to the suggestion of allowing trans women into the women's event despite the performance difference, on the grounds that it isn't that out of scale with other phenotypic variation, and wouldn't necessarily cause problems. But the claim that there isn't a difference (or even that it's unproven there is one) isn't scientifically justifiable, and I'm starting to fill up my "scientific denialism bingo card" from the efforts to pretend it is.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't have the time or inclination to dig it out today, but when I do, I'll dive in again.. I guess I'll see you in about 10 pages or so

I've saved you the time, not least because it's weird you're claiming things you provided were glossed over. I went over the first 30 pages of the thread, and you provided zero links beyond a YouTube video (or maybe my eyes are just shot, who knows):

Correction. One link. I nearly missed it, because you put it as an asterisk after a quote - https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/trans-people-in-sport.677533/page-21#post-16301728. Which links to a blog from Psychology Today dated ten years ago (2012).

So, at a push, an article? Singular? That's a decade old? On the plus side I got to revisit all the argumentation from the first half of the thread, so that was fun.

While you might not like the opinion piece, it does cite sources that are in peer reviewed research. If you're actually interested in the evidence, rather than merely deflecting, you could, you know - look at them.

Deflection is a fun one from someone who's refused repeatedly to provide any evidence that trans women have a material advantage over cis women in competitive sports (until we got to a Quillette piece of all things which you managed to pull a reference from).

But sure. Let's have a look at the piece. Hang on, wait a minute. Huh.

EH and TL have given talks and engaged in the mainstream media and academic press regarding the biology of sex and how they have concluded that this should impact sporting categories. All dissemination or engagement, irrespective of the medium, has been guided by their education, disciplinary training, and research findings. The authors assert that this does not constitute a conflict of interest. Rather, it is an essential part of their academic freedom and their obligation to engage, publicly, in such discussions.

Of course they do (emphasis bold). What was that you were talking about previously, with science driven by ideology? This seems like a clear example. Maybe if they were clear about this upfront, instead of several months after the fact (or if publications that used this as a reference were upfront about the correction, instead of ignoring it as though it doesn't exist).

But finally, we have a singular example of something that can be called evidence. Does that make it fact? Let's have an outside perspective on it: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-do-trans-athletes-have-an-advantage-in-elite-sport/a-58583988

It's particularly interesting what Harper has to say about it:

The study, like any other — including Roberts and Harper's — has its limitations. Harper, who had also done a review of a similar set of studies to Lundberg's, said both of their studies found a "fairly modest change" in strength in non-athletic trans people. "But their review made it seem more definitive than our review did," she said.

"If you are looking for information on cisgender athletes, you'd never use studies on non-athletic trans people. You just wouldn't do that. It's just that we don't have any data on trans athletes. So I think you have to take the results with a certain grain of salt."

So I stand by what was said before: the evidence we do have access to is on the whole inconclusive. There isn't enough of it. And it certainly seems to be skewed by the ideology of those involved at times, which you previously mentioned as a bad thing.

But the claim that there isn't a difference

Nobody is. Again with the repeated strawman that I'm struggling to take in good faith any longer.

or even that it's unproven there is one

I believe the word used was "inconclusive" specifically with regards to the impact on fairness in competitive sports. Cherry-picking individual references that align with your own conclusion is not a convincing argument, either.

I'm starting to fill up my "scientific denialism bingo card" from the efforts to pretend it is.

I just want to in good faith point out that this is an RD thread, and accusing people of things like this is generally how you start a race to the bottom.

 

[Samson]

While you might not like the opinion piece, it does cite sources that are in peer reviewed research. If you're actually interested in the evidence, rather than merely deflecting, you could, you know - look at them. Say for instance this one:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Covers not only the well documented performance difference between men and women, but also how much of the difference is retained by trans women after twelve months of hormone therapy (see table 4 and subsequent discussion). Answer is unsurprisingly that most of the performance difference is retained. As I've said, the idea that testosterone suppression is a convenient leveller between trans women and cis women is not scientifically supported. Hence why sporting body regulations that are based on the incorrect assumption it is are being identified as unscientific and unfit for purpose.

As I've said, I'm open to the suggestion of allowing trans women into the women's event despite the performance difference, on the grounds that it isn't that out of scale with other phenotypic variation, and wouldn't necessarily cause problems. But the claim that there isn't a difference (or even that it's unproven there is one) isn't scientifically justifiable, and I'm starting to fill up my "scientific denialism bingo card" from the efforts to pretend it is.

Table 4 has 12 rows of examples, 7 only look at lean mass, most others are area or volume measurements. The most functional things are two measuring grip strength and one measuring knee extension/flexion strength. Add to this that downhill mountain biking is in the middle of their "how big is the male advantage" graph and it really begs the question of if they are measuring anything relevant. I am sure they could put motor sport, snooker and darts on that graph to demonstrate sexual dimorphism, but it would be more obvious that they are not measureing purely physical factors. I also think it is interesting that that they do not include sports that women beat men at, such as long distance running.

 

[MrCynical]

But finally, we have a singular example of something that can be called evidence. Does that make it fact? Let's have an outside perspective on it: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-do-trans-athletes-have-an-advantage-in-elite-sport/a-58583988

I picked one example as a review. For instance, if you've looked at table 4 you'll notice that it's a summary of a dozen separate studies (Samson has - and has made a valid criticism). You could also for instance look through other reviews in this area. And I'm not too convinced by using the authors having been interviewed in the media on their area of expertise as a justification for discrediting them. Especially given they are largely summarizing other studies.

Nobody is. Again with the repeated strawman that I'm struggling to take in good faith any longer.

The problem with you claiming this is a strawman is that you've then been demanding evidence to address a point you allege you're not in fact making. You've been dodging and giving inconsistent answers for quite some posts now. So any chance of a straight answer as to your opinion on the question:

Do trans women retain some of the male phenotypic advantage compared to cis women?

I'll accept a "yes", "no" or "unproven", but remember you can only consider me to be attacking a strawman if the answer is an unambiguous "Yes" - and even then, only for posts directed specifically to you.

 

[Gorbles]

I picked one example as a review. For instance, if you've looked at table 4 you'll notice that it's a summary of a dozen separate studies (Samson has - and has made a valid criticism). You could also for instance look through other reviews in this area. And I'm not too convinced by using the authors having been interviewed in the media on their area of expertise as a justification for discrediting them. Especially given they are largely summarizing other studies.

Sure, so what about Harper's? Is that not valid criticism in of itself, which is why I provided it in the first place?

The problem with you claiming this is a strawman is that you've then been demanding evidence to address a point you allege you're not in fact making.

Wrong.

You've been dodging and giving inconsistent answers for quite some posts now.

Also wrong.

Do trans women retain some of the male phenotypic advantage compared to cis women?

Compared to untrained cis women? Sure, there's evidence to support this conclusion. But this wasn't an argument anybody was making. Hence, straw.

In the context of sports as per the thread, and specifically high-level competitive sports as has been frequently discussed and referenced to? Inconclusive (see: Harper, et al, among others).

 

[MrCynical]

So that's not a "Yes" to the question I asked, and I'm therefore not attacking a strawman, even when specifically replying to you. Got it. Please don't make accusations like that when you dodge an answer (in the same post as you respond with "wrong" to the statement you've been dodging!) - it isn't helpful to anything.

Do trans women retain some of the male phenotypic advantage compared to cis women?

 

[Gorbles]

So that's not a "Yes" to the question I asked, and I'm therefore not attacking a strawman, even when specifically replying to you. Got it. Please don't make accusations like that when you won't even give an answer - it isn't helpful to anything.

It is a yes, assuming the context is untrained cis women (as a comparison).

It isn't a yes, assuming the context is trans women in sports (and cis competitors). And the Springer article you have referenced (as Harper points out) has some rather curious comparisons here.

Please don't make accusations of "scientific denialism" when you refuse to repeatedly engage with good-faith questions on the validity of critique (as repeatedly provided by my referencing of Harper's comments as provided by a separate article) when it doesn't align with your preconceptions (that you seem determined to not update regardless).

Like, you're a scientist. You've used this fact before to make a point. If you can't separate out the context of "cis women who are not athletes" and "cis women who are athletes" with regards to a thread discussing advantages in competitive sports, that's your failing and yours alone. Trying to get someone to give a one-word answer to multiple contexts is the definition of bad faith. It eliminates nuance, and it seems to be being done on purpose. You have fun with that.

 

[MrCynical]

It is a yes, assuming the context is untrained cis women (as a comparison).

It isn't a yes, assuming the context is trans women in sports (and cis competitors). And the Springer article you have referenced (as Harper points out) has some rather curious comparisons here.

Please don't make accusations of "scientific denialism" when you refuse to repeatedly engage with good-faith questions on the validity of critique (as repeatedly provided by my referencing of Harper's comments as provided by a separate article) when it doesn't align with your preconceptions (that you seem determined to not update regardless).

Thanks for answering this. So I am addressing a point that's under discussion, provided we are not looking specifically at untrained cis vs trans women, not a strawman. I won't bring up scientific denialism again, provided this thread doesn't blatantly veer into it.

 

[Gorbles]

Thanks for answering this. So I am addressing a point that's under discussion, provided we are not looking specifically at untrained cis vs trans women, not a strawman.

Your claim was that people are claiming there is no difference. "inconclusive" is not "no difference". Hence, yes, it is a strawman. You are attributing a position to me (nevermind others) that I am quite literally not holding. I have not once said there is "no difference", and I mean that literally.

If you can't move past this, odds are you're going to have the same problem with other posters. But again, it's a you problem. You decided to conflate said positions, and here you are, trying very hard to not own the consequences of such.