Someone should check what’s in the waters of Lake Victoria (tea leaves?)
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
423 points (98.8% liked)
Damn, that's interesting!
5609 readers
103 users here now
- No clickbait
- No Racism and Hate speech
- No Imgur Gallery Links
- No Infographics
- Moderator Discretion
- Repost Guidelines
- No videos over 15 minutes long
- No "Photoshopped" posts
- Image w/ text posts must be sourced in comments
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 37 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Sorry to be the guy that brings controversial issues to this thread. But this kind of thing is exactly why the "trans women have a biological advantage in sports" argument holds no water. (Other than the fact its almost entirely untrue)
People from this region have a biological advantage in their sports, several orders of magnitude more of an advantage than trans women have. But no one is calling for these people to be banned from sports.
several orders of magnitude more of an advantage than trans women have.
Have there even been studies which can back up this claim¿? Hell have there even been studies which even measure how much of an advantage having smaller calves and ankles gives¿?
Did you mean 'yes'. Because the article you share concludes that trans women have no advantage which is greater than other biological advantages
the article you share concludes that trans women have no advantage which is greater than other biological advantages
Noit doesn't. You are misrepresenting it, or misuing the word 'concludes'. It never says anything like "we conclude' that there is no advantage". The actual conclusion is on p40-41 and can more honestly be phrased as "we cannot conclude that there's a definite advantage. Strength is a possible exception, but how do we even know strength is relevant to sport?" ("Additional biomarkers (such as handgrip strength, hip angle, bone density) have been used uncritically in positivist biological studies to demonstrate cis men’s purported biological advantages over cis women, but there is not sufficient evidence these measures are salient to the question of trans women’s participation.")
9 Conclusion There is no firm basis available in evidence to indicate that trans women have a consistent and measurable overall performance benefit after 12 months of testosterone suppression. While an advantage in terms of Lean Body Mass (LBM), Cross Section Area (CSA) and strength may persist statistically after 12 months, there is no evidence that this translates to any performance advantage as compared to elite cis-women athletes of similar size and height
They're resorting to saying "trans women are stronger than their competitors, but how do we even know that being stronger is advantageous in sport???"
You need to work on your reading comprehension. XD
Do you think that an advantage in terms of strength translates to any performance advantage?
I think that "maybe" having an advantage in terms of strength is an admission that the research is incomplete.
The document is full of admissions that the research is incomplete.
There are tall asians, but there are no testosterone flooded women.
On an unrelated note, can i turn off reply notifications to posts ?
load more comments
(8 replies)
I think we should add biological in front of male and female just to remove any confusion...
That's what AMAB (assigned male at birth) and AFAB (assigned female at birth) are for.
So now we now have to add A M/F AB (sport here) just to appease y'all?
You're the one who suggested adding terms. And who are "y'all"?
Sorry I forgot the /s
Anyone who thinks a male who "transitioned" well after puberty and then competes with females.
It is just a silly notion. Find me a female that transitioned and broken a single record.
These people are just trying to play on easy mode to feel better about themselves at others expense and it's beyond pathetic.
load more comments
(8 replies)