Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Tired Gardener

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short?__twitter_impression=true

This comes at a very interesting time, less than a week since the recent high court landmark ruling.

Some shocking info in there.

'World Rugby recently became the first sports federation to ban trans women from women’s rugby, citing “significant” safety risks and fairness concerns. But most sports still follow IOC guidelines from 2015, which permit trans women to play against biological women providing their testosterone remains below 10 nanomoles per litre – a figure higher than average biological female levels, which range from 0.12 to 1.79nmol/L.'

'The research, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found that before starting their hormone treatment trans women performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in one minute on average than a biological women younger than 30 in the air force – and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster.

Yet after suppressing their testosterone for two years – a year longer than IOC guidelines – they were still 12% faster on average than biological females.

The trans women also retained a 10% advantage in push-ups and a 6% advantage in sit-ups for the first two years after taking hormones, before their advantage disappeared. But the researchers say they “may underestimate the advantage in strength that trans women have over cis women … because trans women will have a higher power output than cis women when performing an equivalent number of push-ups”.'

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short?__twitter_impression=true

This comes at a very interesting time, less than a week since the recent high court landmark ruling.

Some shocking info in there.

It’s a Guardian article, I expect nothing less. However, before anyone gets too excited, I would have thought it prudent to examine how the study was carried out and what was involved -

Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators

I personally have no interest in paying €40 for access to the data or the full study itself, but I know from other contexts that there’s probably more to those figures than the authors of the study are letting on, let alone how the writer of the Guardian article has chosen to cherry pick and present a less than fuller picture of reality.

For what little bit there is though, their methodology is immediately questionable, it’s not just a small sample size, it’s tiny, and they compared the fitness test results of that tiny number to the average fitness test results of all women and men under the age of 30 in the Air Force between 2004 and 2014. They also measured the rate of hormone associated changes in body composition and athletic performance.

Ok so that all sounds legit, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that among that tiny sample set (they were examining data btw, not conducting any tests themselves), it’s not unreasonable to assume that they would be far more likely to be conscious of their health and fitness levels than the average US military personnel. It’s been known about for some time now that there is an obesity epidemic among US military personnel and this shouldn’t come as news to anyone. US troops are simply too fat to fight -

This branch takes the cake as the US military’s fattest

It’s an issue that the US Military have been grappling with for some time as obesity rates among the troops are rising, and fitness levels among the troops are falling, so what do they do? Well they change the criteria of course! They’ve recently decided to drop the ‘tummy tape test’ from the fitness exams in favour of a more ‘holistic’ approach to both physical and mental fitness overall -

Military Troops Overweight /​ Unfit for Duty?

Department of the Air Force moves Physical Fitness Assessments to April 2021, removes waist measurement from composite score permanently

Enhanced physical and cognitive performance in active duty Airmen: evidence from a randomized multimodal physical fitness and nutritional intervention

The idea that the timing of the publication of this study and the decision of the Courts in relation to children’s capacity for medical consent are in any way linked, is merely coincidence, nothing more. The BJSM will publish pretty much anything and call it science, and the Guardian? Well they’ll publish anything and call it scientific research. I don’t mind so much, but I’d rather examine the data for myself than get excited about how it’s spun one way or another in support of one idea or another by not just a second-hand, but a third-party source of information. I just don’t think it’s worth €40 though.

suicide_circus

Yes the guardian are generally itching to publish anything that would hamper the trans narrative

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes the guardian are generally itching to publish anything that would hamper the trans narrative

In more affluent times what you’re supposing would have been true, they could afford to be liberal. Nowadays though, in leaner times, they’re as desperate to survive as every other media outlet that they’ll publish anything they imagine will generate much needed revenue, even pleadings for financial support at the footnote of every article.

EDIT: I’m not sure there could have been a better demonstration of the point than an opinion piece published in today’s Guardian written by one of it’s associate editors -

Labour would do well to rediscover its ‘conservative’ side

As Embery makes the case that the modern left has misunderstood working-class communities such as Barking and Dagenham, where he grew up in the 1990s, he indulges in crude caricature. Today’s Labour party is presented as a citadel of “wokedom”, dominated by “middle-class, Guardian-reading bohemians and pseudo-intellectuals … pursuing an uber-liberal, youth-obsessed, London-centric agenda.” This is a way to end, not begin, discussion. But a dialogue of some kind is truly needed, for the good of Labour’s divided soul.

Like I said, nowadays they’ll publish anything they imagine will generate much needed revenue as they struggle to survive.

Tired Gardener

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In more affluent times what you’re supposing would have been true, they could afford to be liberal. Nowadays though, in leaner times, they’re as desperate to survive as every other media outlet that they’ll publish anything they imagine will generate much needed revenue, even pleadings for financial support at the footnote of every article.

EDIT: I’m not sure there could have been a better demonstration of the point than an opinion piece published in today’s Guardian written by one of it’s associate editors -

Labour would do well to rediscover its ‘conservative’ side

As Embery makes the case that the modern left has misunderstood working-class communities such as Barking and Dagenham, where he grew up in the 1990s, he indulges in crude caricature. Today’s Labour party is presented as a citadel of “wokedom”, dominated by “middle-class, Guardian-reading bohemians and pseudo-intellectuals … pursuing an uber-liberal, youth-obsessed, London-centric agenda.” This is a way to end, not begin, discussion. But a dialogue of some kind is truly needed, for the good of Labour’s divided soul.

Like I said, nowadays they’ll publish anything they imagine will generate much needed revenue as they struggle to survive.

Clutching at straws there OEJ, care to dispute the details or information contained within the article I posted?

suicide_circus

*wall of text prevaricating response*

grassylawn

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Clutching at straws there OEJ, care to dispute the details or information contained within the article I posted?

I think that opportunities to dispute the undisputable are what appeal to him about this site.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Clutching at straws there OEJ, care to dispute the details or information contained within the article I posted?

I did? In my previous post which I quoted you? Clutching at straws is surely a more accurate description of the article and the ‘scientific research’ it refers to, easily disputed by the fact that it’s a known fact that the US Air Force are a tad on the tubby side -

Trouble for the Pentagon: The Troops Keep Packing On the Pounds

And that’s without even acknowledging that during the same period, the US Armed Forces imposed the DADT policy, but they don’t like to talk about it -

Sex Is Still a Taboo Topic in the US Military. It’s Time to Change That

The article above specifically above makes reference to the welfare of women in the Armed Forces and how they are treated, but there’s a whole boatload of context I suggest is not acknowledged by that study in order to validate it’s hypothesis.

grassylawn wrote: »

I think that opportunities to dispute the undisputable are what appeal to him about this site.

It’s because it’s not indisputable, that IMO we should be questioning rather than accepting as fact that which I for one at least know to be untrue. Isn’t that the whole point of a discussion? Nobody yet has offered any comment on the report I provided earlier about the human rights violations in women’s sports among elite athletes, standards which are not applied in men’s sports? I know it’s a 120 page document so I hadn’t expected anyone to read it all in one go or anything, but nothing? No comment at all from anyone who claims to be concerned about the welfare of women in elite athletics? I mean, if one is actually concerned about the idea as to why women do not wish to participate in sports, or why they might drop out of sports, it’s not because they might be expected to compete against men. It’s because of the way they are treated already -

”They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport”

Frankie Machine

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yes the guardian are generally itching to publish anything that would hamper the trans narrative

And they would never sub out Suzanne Moore any views that challenge the trans narrative.

Oh no.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it’s not unreasonable to assume that they would be far more likely to be conscious of their health and fitness levels than the average US military personnel. It’s been known about for some time now that there is an obesity epidemic among US military personnel and this shouldn’t come as news to anyone. US troops are simply too fat to fight -

What is that assumption based on?

Secondly, the study looked at:

'the fitness test results and medical records of 29 trans men and 46 trans women who started gender affirming hormones while in the United States Air Force'

and compared the data to others in the airforce. So whether the airforce is or isn't the unfit test branch of the military is irrelevant as it is (in one sense) comparing like for like.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did? In my previous post which I quoted you? Clutching at straws is surely a more accurate description of the article and the ‘scientific research’ it refers to, easily disputed by the fact that it’s a known fact that the US Air Force are a tad on the tubby side -

Trouble for the Pentagon: The Troops Keep Packing On the Pounds

So what? It compared the medical records of those that started their transition in the air force with the records of non-trans women/men in the air force. So whether or not the air-force is the fattest and/or unfittest branch in the military is irrelevant as the trans-people are just as likely to be just as unfit or as fat as anyone else in the air force.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s without even acknowledging that during the same period, the US Armed Forces imposed the DADT policy, but they don’t like to talk about it -

Sex Is Still a Taboo Topic in the US Military. It’s Time to Change That

The article above specifically above makes reference to the welfare of women in the Armed Forces and how they are treated, but there’s a whole boatload of context I suggest is not acknowledged by that study in order to validate it’s hypothesis.

This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the study.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s because it’s not indisputable, that IMO we should be questioning rather than accepting as fact that which I for one at least know to be untrue. Isn’t that the whole point of a discussion? Nobody yet has offered any comment on the report I provided earlier about the human rights violations in women’s sports among elite athletes, standards which are not applied in men’s sports? I know it’s a 120 page document so I hadn’t expected anyone to read it all in one go or anything, but nothing? No comment at all from anyone who claims to be concerned about the welfare of women in elite athletics? I mean, if one is actually concerned about the idea as to why women do not wish to participate in sports, or why they might drop out of sports, it’s not because they might be expected to compete against men. It’s because of the way they are treated already -

”They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport”

Very few people are trying to have a situation were women have to compete against men, so ofcourse it doesn't come up as a reason women don't participate as much as men (same for girls/boys). The point being made is it is a policy that would very likely reduce participation rates even more.

RWCNT

Frankie Machine wrote: »

And they would never sub out Suzanne Moore any views that challenge the trans narrative.

Oh no.

This just isn't true at all.

The Guardian have published loads of articles challenging the "trans narrative"as you call it.

They published this article literally yesterday:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

Edit: Sorry, didn't realise that this was the article that prompted the discussion. Assumed it was one of Jack's many links.

Catherine Bennett wrote this piece 9 months ago pushing back on the dismissing of critics as transphobes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/labour-pledges-to-fight-transphobia-stifle-debate

She continues to be published by The Guardian as recently as this month. One article in September explicitly defended JK Rowling.

I'm not keen on most Guardian opinion pieces, but I've always seen them to platform differing views on topics, like pieces arguing both in favour of and against Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party for example.

To be honest, is a topic like this something we want wanky opinion pieces on from one side or the other? I much prefer the most recent articles focus on hard data.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So what? It compared the medical records of those that started their transition in the air force with the records of non-trans women/men in the air force. So whether or not the air-force is the fattest and/or unfittest branch in the military is irrelevant as the trans-people are just as likely to be just as unfit or as fat as anyone else in the air force.

They’re not as they would likely be having to monitor their health and fitness levels a lot closer than the many thousands of Air Force personnel who are on average overweight and unfit.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the study.

Of course it does as it provides context. It’s not that women aren’t as good as men is the reason why they aren’t joining the Military. It’s because of how the Military treats women already is why they’re having difficulty recruiting women.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Very few people are trying to have a situation were women have to compete against men, so ofcourse it doesn't come up as a reason women don't participate as much as men (same for girls/boys). The point being made is it is a policy that would very likely reduce participation rates even more.

But that’s the very reason why World Athletics make women do sex testing in the first place (and the men don’t), and why people here are adamant that men shouldn’t be permitted to compete with women, or have women compete with men. The point about the policy having the effect of reducing participation rates is based upon nothing more than supposition and gender stereotyping. The ‘science’ behind the ban is sketchy, at best, perpetuated by the same BJSM that provided studies to the WA already to support their views, the same BJSM that is behind the latest flawed study upon which they suggest athletics policies and legislation should be based.

If men were being sex tested and ‘failed’ the sex test, there’s no suggestion that they should be forced to compete in the women’s events. That’s what doesn’t come up, but somehow it’s ok to put women through that? The end doesn’t come anywhere near justifying the means.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

This just isn't true at all.

The Guardian have published loads of articles challenging the "trans narrative"as you call it.

They published this article literally yesterday:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

Edit: Sorry, didn't realise that this was the article that prompted the discussion. Assumed it was one of Jack's many links.

Catherine Bennett wrote this piece 9 months ago pushing back on the dismissing of critics as transphobes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/labour-pledges-to-fight-transphobia-stifle-debate

She continues to be published by The Guardian as recently as this month. One article in September explicitly defended JK Rowling.

I'm not keen on most Guardian opinion pieces, but I've always seen them to platform differing views on topics, like pieces arguing both in favour of and against Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party for example.

To be honest, is a topic like this something we want wanky opinion pieces on from one side or the other? I much prefer the most recent articles focus on hard data.

Why not? Why would this topic be exempt? I’m interested to read people’s opinions on it.

One eyed Jack

RWCNT wrote: »

To be honest, is a topic like this something we want wanky opinion pieces on from one side or the other? I much prefer the most recent articles focus on hard data.

I generally tend to avoid the wanky opinion pieces either way myself, but given the nature of the topic, hard data is an impossibility. Articles that suggest they are focused on hard data are just as pretentious as the opinion pieces. Either way, evidence one way or the other isn’t going to be persuasive to anyone who’s opinions are already rigid, which is why the GRA is necessary, because then it doesn’t matter how many people here say they would respect a person’s wishes. It’s when people don’t, that people who are transgender have the same means of legal recourse as everyone else to seek justice for being discriminated against on the grounds of gender identity.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As you suggested (perhaps without realising), there are far more socially unacceptable disorders than autism - gender dysphoria is one of ‘em.

As someone with a non-verbal, severely autistic older brother, I completely disagree with this assessment of autism. Discourse around autism is increasingly dominated by people with less severe autism, with the ability to express themselves both verbally and through the written word. People like my brother are being marginalised and increasingly maligned and even mocked by these people as not representative of the autism community.

Trust me a grown man who can have loud and often violent outbursts when stressed is not regarded as socially acceptable and there is huge stigma towards people like my brother. My family have been told on numerous occasions that my brother shouldn't be allowed out in public and should be locked up.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

As someone with a non-verbal, severely autistic older brother, I completely disagree with this assessment of autism. Discourse around autism is increasingly dominated by people with less severe autism, with the ability to express themselves both verbally and through the written word. People like my brother are being marginalised and increasingly maligned and even mocked by these people as not representative of the autism community.

Trust me a grown man who can have loud and often violent outbursts when stressed is not regarded as socially acceptable and there is huge stigma towards people like my brother. My family have been told on numerous occasions that my brother shouldn't be allowed out in public and should be locked up.

I do trust you as I worked with both adults and children with all manner of physical, cognitive, intellectual and developmental disabilities with varying degrees of severity for years. I’m well aware of the difficulties with both adults and children, but what I was getting at was the attitudes towards both autism and transgenderism - autism as a diagnosis in children, is more socially acceptable whereas gender dysphoria is regarded as a big no-no, must be something else, and it’s a correlation which I wholeheartedly reject because it’s based upon nothing more than ignorance of both autism and gender dysphoria.

grassylawn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do trust you as I worked with both adults and children with all manner of physical, cognitive, intellectual and developmental disabilities with varying degrees of severity for years. I’m well aware of the difficulties with both adults and children, but what I was getting at was the attitudes towards both autism and transgenderism - autism as a diagnosis in children, is more socially acceptable whereas gender dysphoria is regarded as a big no-no, must be something else, and it’s a correlation which I wholeheartedly reject because it’s based upon nothing more than ignorance of both autism and gender dysphoria.

The diagnosis isn't what is unacceptable. Looking to treat it as a physical condition and not a psychological one is.

AllForIt

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/20...mpression=true

For me the issue has noting to do with hormones or comparative performance ability between the sexes.

Sports are divided between biological men and biological women in the same way marriage was once only for one man and one women. You can endeavour to change that if you wish in the same way marriage was redefined to accommodate homosexuals I have no objection. But don't pretend you are not changing the definition of sports but instead fixing some fundamental right that is being denied.

One eyed Jack

grassylawn wrote: »

The diagnosis isn't what is unacceptable. Looking to treat it as a physical condition and not a psychological one is.

Perhaps not to you, but to many more people the diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children is unacceptable. To me it’s unacceptable because I despise pathologising children in any case. To many more people it’s unacceptable because it’s not what they wanted for their children. The treatment is of course undoubtedly extreme, but it’s rare, and many children aren’t suitable for treatment, but the recommended course of action following a diagnosis is more often allowing a child to socially transition.

It is of course a psychological condition and it’s treated as a psychological condition. If by “treating it as a physical condition” you mean hormone treatments, the treatment isn’t any different from other conditions which affect children where the treatments are extreme and expected to have lifelong consequences which require careful monitoring.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/20...mpression=true

For me the issue has noting to do with hormones or comparative performance ability between the sexes.

Sports are divided between biological men and biological women in the same way marriage was once only for one man and one women. You can endeavour to change that if you wish in the same way marriage was redefined to accommodate homosexuals I have no objection. But don't pretend you are not changing the definition of sports but instead fixing some fundamental right that is being denied.

Marriage wasn’t redefined then any more than sports wouldn’t be redefined by allowing people to participate regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation. A fundamental right is being denied when people are not treated equally.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I suspect a lot of people are unaware of that feature of Twitter. Hence how people get caught out. People should stand by what they like though, IMO.

Its pretty extraordinary to go through a man's entire likes though. Theres no easy way to do that, you have to go through it. And I doubt this guy was the only politician they chased after.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not as they would likely be having to monitor their health and fitness levels a lot closer than the many thousands of Air Force personnel who are on average overweight and unfit.

Everyone health and fitness is monitored in the military, you do yearly (and sometimes six monthly) fitness tests. If the tests are failed you do them again, and are put in a training programme having failed to help you pass. There is nothing to suggest that trans-people are on average healthier than their military counter parts or healthier than the general population.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it does as it provides context. It’s not that women aren’t as good as men is the reason why they aren’t joining the Military. It’s because of how the Military treats women already is why they’re having difficulty recruiting women.

What has this got to the with the study in question? The study was not studying why women do not join up. It is irrelevant.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that’s the very reason why World Athletics make women do sex testing in the first place (and the men don’t), and why people here are adamant that men shouldn’t be permitted to compete with women, or have women compete with men. The point about the policy having the effect of reducing participation rates is based upon nothing more than supposition and gender stereotyping. The ‘science’ behind the ban is sketchy, at best, perpetuated by the same BJSM that provided studies to the WA already to support their views, the same BJSM that is behind the latest flawed study upon which they suggest athletics policies and legislation should be based.

If men were being sex tested and ‘failed’ the sex test, there’s no suggestion that they should be forced to compete in the women’s events. That’s what doesn’t come up, but somehow it’s ok to put women through that? The end doesn’t come anywhere near justifying the means.

Are you suggesting one reason women have lower participation in Sports is because they are afraid of having to undergo a sex test?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not as they would likely be having to monitor their health and fitness levels a lot closer than the many thousands of Air Force personnel who are on average overweight and unfit.

No they aren't. Spoofer.

You are such a spoofer. Faced with a study that showed that tranwomen in the Air Force still had an advantage two years after testosterone reduction, you decided that the Air Force was on average fat. You did this by linking to a study that showed that 18% were over weight. That the trans women come from this sample and would also be on average 18% fat escaped you.

Spoofer.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Are you suggesting one reason women have lower participation in Sports is because they are afraid of having to undergo a sex test?

Yes Cteven. That, among other reasons as to how women are treated already within sports, are contributing factors which lead to women’s lower participation in sports already, as things stand. The idea that allowing men to compete with women in sports would lead to less women participating in sports is based upon nothing more than prejudice and stereotypes. In the report I presented earlier, it documents the cases of fourteen women who have been subjected to violations of their human rights and coerced into having unnecessary medical procedures done and subjected to all manner of horrors which have ruined their lives, and they are not the only women who’s lives have been ruined.

There are many, many more women and girls have been harmed, and much more harm has been caused as a result of this sex testing, than any benefit it has been to protect women’s participation in sports. I’d honestly suggest reading the document for yourself, because by comparison to what those women have been put through, and comparing that to having to respect someone’s prejudices and accommodate their prejudices? I kinda very quickly run out of fcuks to give tbh.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Faced with a study that showed that tranwomen in the Air Force still had an advantage two years after testosterone reduction, you decided that the Air Force was on average fat. You did this by linking to a study that showed that 18% were over weight. That the trans women come from this sample and would also be on average 18% fat escaped you.

No, I didn’t decide that the Air Force was on average fat, I showed evidence that the same group that they used as a comparison group to the tiny number of people who are transgender, would be more likely to be unfit and overweight and so would be more likely to fail the fitness test than people who would have to monitor their health and fitness levels DAILY, because they were taking hormones to maintain their physique (both pre-op and post-op). They compared this tiny number to an average of all the service personnel over a period of 10 years under 30 years of age in the Air Force.

I won’t lie, I can’t make any sense of your claim which escaped me that the trans women came from the sample would be on average 18% fat. Do you mean that they’d be part of the 18%? Even if they were, what percentage of the total Air Force personnel under 30 do you imagine imagine the 75 study candidates were? You do the math.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I didn’t decide that the Air Force was on average fat, I showed evidence that the same group that they used as a comparison group to the tiny number of people who are transgender, would be more likely to be unfit and overweight and so would be more likely to fail the fitness test than people who would have to monitor their health and fitness levels DAILY, because they were taking hormones to maintain their physique (both pre-op and post-op).

You absolutely did not show this. You have made an assumption, and have not backed it up with anything. Are there any studies that show that, on average, trans people are fitter than the average non-trans person? That would be showing evidence of your claim.

Just because someone is taking hormones (pre or post) doesn't mean that they are more likely to be healthier than someone who isn't. There is nothing to suggest they are. In fact, the evidence suggest that trans-people are more unhealthy in comparison to to their non-trans peers.


https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/lgbt.2015.0058

Significant disparities in the prevalence of medical diagnoses for TG veterans were also detected for 16/17 diagnoses examined, with HIV disease representing the largest disparity between groups.

I will try link the full paper tomorrow. And:

Findings also indicate that transgender adults have unfavorable risk factors [2, 10, 26], including disproportionate levels of discrimination in healthcare settings [26–28] and worse health than their cisgender peers

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228765

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They compared this tiny number to an average of all the service personnel over a period of 10 years under 30 years of age in the Air Force.

I won’t lie, I can’t make any sense of your claim which escaped me that the trans women came from the sample would be on average 18% fat. Do you mean that they’d be part of the 18%? Even if they were, what percentage of the total Air Force personnel under 30 do you imagine imagine the 75 study candidates were? You do the math.

Do you understand how statistical sampling works? The paper is also peer reviewed and appears in the BJSM, which is a well respected journal in it's field. It hasn't been published in some nothing, predatory journal.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes Cteven. That, among other reasons as to how women are treated already within sports, are contributing factors which lead to women’s lower participation in sports already, as things stand. The idea that allowing men to compete with women in sports would lead to less women participating in sports is based upon nothing more than prejudice and stereotypes. In the report I presented earlier, it documents the cases of fourteen women who have been subjected to violations of their human rights and coerced into having unnecessary medical procedures done and subjected to all manner of horrors which have ruined their lives, and they are not the only women who’s lives have been ruined.

There are many, many more women and girls have been harmed, and much more harm has been caused as a result of this sex testing, than any benefit it has been to protect women’s participation in sports. I’d honestly suggest reading the document for yourself, because by comparison to what those women have been put through, and comparing that to having to respect someone’s prejudices and accommodate their prejudices? I kinda very quickly run out of fcuks to give tbh.

I suggest you go to talk to female athletes as to whether they would welcome the idea of competing against men, and the undoing of the division of most sports based on sex, and whether they would continue in their chosen sport when having to compete against men, and you will find that being against the idea is not based in 'prejudice', but an acknowledgement of sex differences.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You absolutely did not show this. You have made an assumption, and have not backed it up with anything. Are there any studies that show that, on average, trans people are fitter than the average non-trans person? That would be showing evidence of your claim.

That’s what the study suggests? That the data they examined showed that the 75 candidates were fitter than the total number of Air Force personnel under 30, and they examined the data over a 10 year period to come to the conclusion that it was based upon their elevated testosterone levels which bestowed upon them this advantage, which waned after 2 years. They suggest that the study can be used in sports and legislative policies. I’m suggesting that the study is flawed, because their methodology is flawed, it’s just bad data.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Do you understand how statistical sampling works? The paper is also peer reviewed and appears in the BJSM, which is a well respected journal in it's field. It hasn't been published in some nothing, predatory journal.

I do, that’s why I said I would like to see the data for myself, but I can draw conclusions from other data that is publicly available without having to pay €40 for a paper published in the BJSM which is absolutely not a well respected journal in it’s field due to the fact that it just publishes bad science, which if challenged is either not published, or put behind a paywall -


David Nunan, from Oxford University’s centre for evidence-based medicine, and three colleagues wrote a rebuttal that the journal at first did not use and then, more than a year later, put behind a paywall, while the original article was free. Last week’s letter of complaint asked Dr Fiona Godlee, the editor-in-chief of the BMJ, which publishes the British Journal of Sports Medicine, to intervene, saying the journal had run 10 pieces advocating low-carb diets and criticising statins in the past three years and that the reluctance to run the rebuttal showed a bias and lack of transparency. She replied defending the journal’s right to challenge “the status quo in some settings”, but allowed free access to the rebuttal.


Butter nonsense: the rise of the cholesterol deniers

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s what the study suggests? That the data they examined showed that the 75 candidates were fitter than the total number of Air Force personnel under 30, and they examined the data over a 10 year period to come to the conclusion that it was based upon their elevated testosterone levels which bestowed upon them this advantage, which waned after 2 years. They suggest that the study can be used in sports and legislative policies. I’m suggesting that the study is flawed, because their methodology is flawed, it’s just bad data.

The study suggests that transwomen have a physical advantage over non-transwomen for up to at least two years, and transmen can ultimately outperform non trans men in certain activities due to their use of what is ultimately a performing enhancing drug. It does not show that '75 candidates were fitter than the total number of Air Force personnel under 30'. You aren't being careful and/or are misreading the findings of the study.


Secondly, the paper has been peer reviewed, and peer reviewed by a respected journal. Sorry, but I will trust them over you. The only reason you are suggesting it is flawed is because you don't understand how statistical sampling works, and because a minority of the air force are obese (this is why they used an average! )

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do, that’s why I said I would like to see the data for myself, but I can draw conclusions from other data that is publicly available without having to pay €40 for a paper published in the BJSM which is absolutely not a well respected journal in it’s field due to the fact that it just publishes bad science, which if challenged is either not published, or put behind a paywall -


David Nunan, from Oxford University’s centre for evidence-based medicine, and three colleagues wrote a rebuttal that the journal at first did not use and then, more than a year later, put behind a paywall, while the original article was free. Last week’s letter of complaint asked Dr Fiona Godlee, the editor-in-chief of the BMJ, which publishes the British Journal of Sports Medicine, to intervene, saying the journal had run 10 pieces advocating low-carb diets and criticising statins in the past three years and that the reluctance to run the rebuttal showed a bias and lack of transparency. She replied defending the journal’s right to challenge “the status quo in some settings”, but allowed free access to the rebuttal.


Butter nonsense: the rise of the cholesterol deniers

It has an impact rating of around 12 or 13, that firmly puts it in the 'well respected' ball park. Talking out of your arse as usual. The rebuttal was eventually put out for free. Regardless, few journals with long histories are immune from some form of controversy. You post this up as if this one example completely decimate a reputation built up over 40 years. Rubbish.