Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

There are bell curves on top of bell curves,

Well certain unscrupulous individuals have been known to take performance enhancing substances.

There's even been cases where unscrupulous states have administered these substances to athletes unknown to the athletes.

Well you're going to be shocked when you hear about what went on with the East Germans back in the 70's then.

Just because testing detects mostly high levels of naturally occurring testosterone doesn't mean that exogenous testosterone is ignored. It likely means dopers are using other means.

If they stopped testing for any performance enhancing substance athletes (male and female) would start using it again.

Would oestrogen benefit muscle mass in men. Have you data to show this and then that it's not tested for in the event it is performance enhancing.

I think we can only conclude if women or men are more likely to cheat by comparing test failure rates.

However you could conclude if women are being given a gender verification test then it's men who are more likely to cheat by posing as women but then there's probably not much temptation for women to cheat by posing as men. Just to be clear by posing as men or women I mean literally that, I don't mean transgender and specifically mean cis gender people who pretend to be the other gender for the sole purpose of cheating in sport.

I don't know of anyone done for doping based on excessive facial hair.

Can you post anything without being crotchety and condescending? Jesus. You used to be quite civil. I don't recognize the Wibbs of the past few months/years. Check your own lenses.

Oh, so the purpose of your post is pithy vengeance on the libs?

The Negro Leagues vanished; I don't know whether the mens, womens, or open categories will vanish, but one or more of them inevitably will.

Because clearly a lot of people around here lack any historical context for discrimination, particularly in sport.

I could post a number of contemporary studies that showed physiological trait differences between the negro and the enlightened/superior white european [sic] which were used to argue for the justification of segregating the races in sports.

It didn't mean Blacks were not discriminated against.

Share all the modern-contemporary snake oil you want.

It was on response to the question "why are biologically female athletes testosterone levels tested?"

So, no.

Even before colonizers arrived Native Americans recognized gender fluidity in two-spirited members of the tribe. Would you disagree with well researched and referenced anthropological history? Transgenderism issues aren't a modern or scientific emergence, the emergence now is that we have the medical technology to transition (in part, yet) between genders in the flesh so to speak.

That was sort of what I was getting at: the exact opposite - why claim modern science is the most correct because the paper came out last week etc. vs. something which is older but unchallenged academia. I'm not an Anthro as I called out, too. I just know this bit of trivia and would argue that gender fluidity is not a new human concept that came along with sex reassignment surgery availability.

Now to be fair, I am just a layperson. I don't have the guff or the chops to tell you all the science on this is wrong and I don't have the bandwidth nor do I have the expertise - in fact my university/engineering credo would tell me to not dive into and assert expertise in any of these areas I haven't been trained in. I can only tell you my opinion, which I think we disagree upon, is that the science serves a junk purpose if it is written to exclude people from self actualization. I've made those comparisons to plantation/Jim Crow Eugenics, I don't have the credit to tell you the papers you've researched fall into the same tangent, but I'm concerned that's where we're heading. This conversation (which I think we've all tried to keep fairly sterile) is not helped by, legitimately transphobic noise from the broader political sphere, from the pundits and politicians to the coworkers and the neighbors.

the real snake oil salesmen are selling you something you want to believe in, with no basis in fact

"If you mean it concludes transgender women have advantages over cis gender women you can't call that snake oil just because you disagree.

Snake oil is completely fraudulent claims."

But that's exactly what people did when academics argued, using apparent science, that blacks shouldn't be in league with whites. We're just taking another trip around the sun and it's some other Other now.

What you're saying is I don't like it so I'm going to say it's wrong and those presenting the science are transphobic.

Certainly people twist data to support either side of the debate but the middle ground accept there are physiological advantages for transwomen. The debate then becomes should they be included in womens categories (inclusion) or should they be included in a different category so competition is fairer for cis gender women (fairness in terms of competition rather than fairness of inclusion). It's valid to argue for either.

You are arguing for inclusion but doing so by denying there is any physiological advantages because you don't like it and nothing more to support it. It's the equivalent of those racist academics you are decrying.