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

You might get a niche group of liberals behind that, but the majority of people will not buy in.

You're not a woman with male bits, but someone else might be.

I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though we agree on the endpoint anyway!

I have no problem accepting that Lia Thomas considers herself a woman, and would desire to race in the female category as a result. Now I would hope that if I were in her position I'd have enough awareness to realise how fundamentally unfair that is to the other competitors and wouldn't take that option even if it were available. But I can also understand how big a deal it must be to change genders, and as a result, see other factors as being more important. Let's face it, I doubt the ongoing publicity and derision she receives as a result of her participation in the Female category is something that someone would choose to endure unless there were some major motivation stopping her from just walking away.

(Much and all as I despise junkie cheats like Johnson, In his case, it has pretty much been established that "they" really were all on it, and he would have had no chance without juicing up. It seems to be a lot cleaner now. At the least the level of testing is massively improved).

Your father must have been a top-class sprinter in his day. That's a super time. (Like I say, we agree on the endpoint here. Males have a huge performance advantage over females in the vast majority of sports, and as a result should never be allowed to compete in the female category)

Science isn’t required to demonstrate that men will excel in activities developed to demonstrate men’s superiority, using research conducted by men, on men -

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/09/sports-research-gender-gap-study

In other news, water is wet. Why its a question in this day and age is not my doing, but rather an attempt to declare that because men are superior to women, this justifies the disparity in the treatment of both sexes, how they should be regarded, and how they should regard themselves.

I’m aware that nobody is banned from sports, the point however is that transgender athletes aren’t likely to volunteer for research which is intended to gather evidence to justify a blanket ban in sports. While it’s gracious of you to declare what other people can and cannot do as though they aren’t aware already, the point is that the rules of any sport are entirely a man-made invention, and can be changed, because they are not subject to the limitations of nature.

Science isn’t required to demonstrate that men will excel in activities developed to demonstrate men’s superiority, using research conducted by men, on men -

Wow, that is a pathetically ignorant thing to say. You really have no clue, and just seem to be so resistant to admitting that males are stronger, faster etc than females. You just can't bear to say it, can you?

Of course I can say it, I just don’t see its relevance, that’s all.

Noah Lyles is far more famous for running his mouth off than running on the track. That’s just a fact, it’s why he was approached for the Netflix show. There are athletes who are better than him who don’t enjoy anything like the fame he does.

It IS a phenomenon, and you and I clearly aren’t talking about the same research, however well it is, or isn’t documented. I’ve no doubt that most of us here Frank would have had some introduction to biology in school, and equally no doubt some of us put that knowledge to better use than others 😏

How is pointing out that I don’t see the relevance of pointing out that men are superior to women in relation to the phenomenon of men competing in women’s sports, in any way undermining science?

I don’t think you’re following your own arguments. You asked would anyone care if he were 7th or 8th (they do), and then you made the point that he was famous/popular because of his results. I don’t know how you’re choosing to define fame, but he was neither famous nor popular before running his mouth off on social media, and then the Netflix show that followed which increased his fame and popularity (or unpopularity, even!). The whole reason for the show is to increase the popularity of athletics, and Lyles makes for entertaining viewing (though as I said previously, I’m not the show’s target demographic).

I can’t present research that doesn’t exist. Nobody can, because it doesn’t exist! That’s not an emotive appeal, it’s simply stating a fact.

As for the idea that males are stronger, faster, etc than females, it’s an incontrovertible biological fact, and what of it? That’s what I’m asking, because I don’t see the point as being relevant within the very specific context of the phenomenon of men competing in women’s sports.

And just for the purposes of clarification, so we might be somewhere on the same page, this is what I mean by ‘phenomenon’, in a scientific context:

In natural sciences, a phenomenon is an observable happening or event.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

That’s a very simple definition, but it basically means there hasn’t yet been any scientific research conducted into the phenomenon of men competing in women’s sports. Comparing men’s performances to women’s performances in sports and imagining that is sufficient to answer the question, is not science.

Nope, and I don’t mean to sound glib or anything, because I get what Frank is looking for, something like this:

https://www.outsports.com/2024/4/12/24091267/transgender-athletes-study-research-science-sports-governing-bodies/

But if I wouldn’t accept it because I can see from a mile away the obvious limitations of it, I’m certainly not going to present it as evidence of anything or that it really tells us anything. The evidence just isn’t there. I’m not going to be salty about it either the way the lead researcher attempts to pre-emptively dismiss anyone’s opinion which doesn’t concur with his:

He added: “It follows that research conducted comparing biological men to biological women is almost irrelevant in this debate and evidence from such comparisons should not be used to inform policy as is the case by many “armchair professors” advocating the default ban position.

do you disagree with the study you presented as evidence?

From the post you quoted:

I’m certainly not going to present it as evidence of anything or that it really tells us anything.

This is a confusion between "better at one thing" and "just better".

Moreover it's a confusion which is grounded in the same masculine view of the world that you are trying to condemn in the first sentence: "men will excel in activities developed to demonstrate men’s superiority, using research conducted by men, on men".

Because here's the thing: sports were invented mainly by men for men, but we can't change that fact just by pretending they weren't. The strongest muscle in any human body is the uterus. By that measure, women are FAR stronger than men. Can we use that strength in any human-made sport though? I can't think of a way, TBH.

As for the sports that we do have, women's bodies are generally at a disadvantage - for one simple reason: our bodies evolved to carry and give birth to babies, and until that becomes an olympic sport, the fact that we are more prone to, say, knee injuries from running because our wider pelvis (for childbirth) means our legs are at a wider angle compared to mens', is just a fact.

https://emmahilton.substack.com/p/sex-differences-between-men-and-women

Acknowledging that doesn't mean thinking men are generally better than women, nor even that women's sport is a bit boring really. It just means that certain physiological differences cannot be ignored, and that putting male bodies against female bodies in many sports is like ignoring weight categories in sports that require those: watching different weight categories as separate categories can be great viewing, but watching a heavyweight or a middle weight fighting a bantamweight or a flyweight would not.

I'd guess it would be easier to state it another way:
Do you disagree with the data included within the study you presented?

As you say, the conclusions seem to have an agenda, but the method and results seem sound and statistically significant (if limited due to a higher average age than elite athletes, many would be retired at 34 barring the more sedentary sports).

This was retweeted by the author of the study

it would be funny if it wasnt so tragic,

there are no baselines, (apparently they are doing a longitudal study,) but the one linked they could be comparing elite women atheletes to transwomen who train 3 times a week, the inclusion criteria are literally play a competitive sport or train 3 times a week

I think the author of the study is a transwoman who wants to play ladies soccer

It would be great if the science you’re referring to, related to the
question being asked, but it doesn’t, and there hasn’t been any
scientific research conducted into the phenomenon of men competing in
women’s sports.

More BS. There are plenty of sports where Males compete side by side with Females, with only the results being categorised by Sex. And in those sports, the results are entirely consistent with sports where Males and Females compete separately. There is no "magic" whereby males competing alongside females causes a loss of performance by the males, or an increase in performance by females in any statistically relevant manner. There is no need for any "research" to check this, as we have decades of results and data with millions of data points. Unsurprisingly to anyone, apart from you it would seem, the results (literally in this case) show that Males have a huge inherent performance advantage over Females.

The chances of any serious scientific research being funded to "investigate" something that is already so readily apparent and well proven is pretty slim indeed. You not liking reality is probably not going to justify the funding of such research.

How is pointing out that I don’t see the relevance of pointing out that men are superior to women in relation to the phenomenon of men competing in women’s sports, in any way undermining science? 

Because you are failing to acknowledge a biological fact, and attempting to undermine it by saying games were invented by men, for men, etc. You are avoiding admitting that males possess advantages over females and how this translates to outright performance and strength, which again gets applied to sports.

I don’t think you’re following your own arguments. You asked would anyone care if he were 7th or 8th (they do), and then you made the point that he was famous/popular because of his results. I don’t know how you’re choosing to define fame, but he was neither famous nor popular before running his mouth off on social media, and then the Netflix show that followed which increased his fame and popularity (or unpopularity, even!). The whole reason for the show is to increase the popularity of athletics, and Lyles makes for entertaining viewing (though as I said previously, I’m not the show’s target demographic). 

There was only a netflix show because of his performances and success in his filed of sport. He is a top athlete, he is winning, that is what is giving him his platform. This is basic to follow, you just don't seem to grasp that. He makes for entertaining viewing, sure, he is also one of the top sprinters on the planet right now, so his success in sport is what matters here, not him running his mouth. Perhaps you are follow the social media part of things and not sport at all? We might have gotten to the bottom of it lads, armchair expert who never played or took part in sports.

I can’t present research that doesn’t exist. Nobody can, because it doesn’t exist! That’s not an emotive appeal, it’s simply stating a fact.

So what are you even saying? The facts that males are superior athletes is beyond a documented fact, it is observable, you are ignoring it.

As for the idea that males are stronger, faster, etc than females, it’s an incontrovertible biological fact, and what of it? That’s what I’m asking, because I don’t see the point as being relevant within the very specific context of the phenomenon of men competing in women’s sports.

And just for the purposes of clarification, so we might be somewhere on the same page, this is what I mean by ‘phenomenon’, in a scientific context:

In natural sciences, a phenomenon is an observable happening or event. 


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

You don't see the point or why it is relevant when males compete against females…but you acknowledge (finally) that males are stronger, faster, more powerful…you do realise that all of those attributes translate DIRECTLY to a sporting context, which equals an advantage. Nothing to do with the people who made the sports, designed the rules, just that males have an inherent, biological advantage. And you think it is ok for males to compete in females sports? You are making no sense at all.

That’s a very simple definition, but it basically means there hasn’t yet been any scientific research conducted into the phenomenon of men competing in women’s sports. Comparing men’s performances to women’s performances in sports and imagining that is sufficient to answer the question, is not science.

So when women run a marathon, 100m sprint, throw a hammer, a javelin, do the high jump, when directly compared to the results in the male category, that is not evidence enough for you? Do you think, perhaps, that there doesn't need to be additional research done because it is ALREADY done at the Olympics???