Trans people & sports

[Shell B]

Tentativeness is not confirmation, surely. However, if it is exists, then there is some uncertainty. Hey, but it's cool when people can't admit that they may be wrong. Who'd have though you guys would have so much in common with alpha?

[The Grand Nudger]

What on earth is going on here, lol?

The notion that there is some trans advantage is unfounded.  A person who chose studies to, ostensibly, show that there was or may be some trans advantage, ended up instead with studies that conclude, in each case, that no such advantage could be quantified.   In the most generous of the studies, they add the proviso that the advantage may be below the threshold of detection.  

Really let that sink in.  The obvious™ advantages of "man bones/muscles/shape stronk" is below the threshold of detection or flat out non-existent.  We either can't find it, or it isn't there.  Take your pick, it hardly matters either way, and this is reflected in regulations allowing post op trans to compete after a given period.  

The thing I find fascinating about this one, is the disparity between perception and clinical study on this issue.  If you ask a person on the street, they're likely to think that there are advantages to having been born a man so obvious that they barely require mention, and that any question as to what those advantages may specifically be are beyond the point of credible inquiry.  Such comments even made their way into this thread.  Such is not the case, however.  

So why do we think so, why do we persist in thinking so?

[Shell B]

Guys, if you have a claim and expect people to believe it, post credible sources. I've been waiting. Everything I can find from actual scholarly publications seems to point to there still being controversy/ongoing study. Everything that supports your argument is an opinion piece written as a philosophy paper or the like. You can't just keep saying, "studies show." What studies? Where are the links? You think I'm just sitting too firmly on the fence, but you just keep saying shit without backing it up.

[The Grand Nudger]

There -is- controversy..but not about the clinical data.  It's a social controversy.  

There -is- ongoing study, and that ongoing study has continued to fail to quantify any trans advantage, just as previous studies failed to quantify a trans advantage. 

The links that I was recently discussing were provided by Alpha, so you already have them.  The references on those links are extensive.  Maybe peruse those?

(It would probably be more accurate to say that I think that there isn't any fence for you to sit on, at least not clinically, biologically, or rationally. What are we talking about, at this point, if not phantom advantages? )

[I_am_not_mafia]

Guys, if you have a claim and expect people to believe it, post credible sources. I've been waiting. Everything I can find from actual scholarly publications seems to point to there still being controversy/ongoing study. Everything that supports your argument is an opinion piece written as a philosophy paper or the like. You can't just keep saying, "studies show." What studies? Where are the links? You think I'm just sitting too firmly on the fence, but you just keep saying shit without backing it up.

You're the one doubting the IOC, which is what the poll is about. The burden is on you because you are making the claim that they could be wrong. You can't even explain why you have doubt.

[John V]

We may summarize as follows:
1. Testosterone exposure has profound effects on muscle mass and strength, justifying the practice that men and women compete in sports in separate categories.
2. The response to testosterone exposure in men is idiosyncratic; similar plasma levels of testosterone do not produce similar effects on muscle mass and strength.
3. The effects of cross-sex hormones in the dosages commonly used have reached their maximum effects after 1 year of administration.
4. In spite of a large difference in testosterone exposure between men and women, there is a large overlap of muscle area between them.
5. Androgen deprivation of men induces a loss of muscle area, further increasing this overlap with women.
6. Therefore, depending on the levels of arbitrariness one wants to accept, it is justifiable that reassigned M –F compete with other women.

I thought you'd highlight that without thinking about it. Do you know what arbitrariness is?

ar·bi·trar·i·ness
ˈärbəˌtrərēnəs/
noun
1. the quality of being based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

So, it's justifiable to let MTFs compete as women if you're willing to indulge in personal whim, rather than reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your links tanked and that's the best save you've got?  Buddy, just stick with "ew, trannies are gross"..at least we'll know it comes from the heart. 

[Catholic_Lady]

Guys, if you have a claim and expect people to believe it, post credible sources. I've been waiting. Everything I can find from actual scholarly publications seems to point to there still being controversy/ongoing study. Everything that supports your argument is an opinion piece written as a philosophy paper or the like. You can't just keep saying, "studies show." What studies? Where are the links? You think I'm just sitting too firmly on the fence, but you just keep saying shit without backing it up.

You're the one doubting the IOC, which is what the poll is about. The burden is on you because you are making the claim that they could be wrong. You can't even explain why you have doubt.

Aren't yall supposed to be skeptics? You're going to trust the ioc without them presenting sufficient evidence for their claim?

All shell is doing is saying she needs legitimate evidence before forming an opinion on this issue either way.

[The Grand Nudger]

She can have it if she wants it, they referred to it in making the decision.  You can have it if you want it too.  What's the problem?

[Shell B]

Guys, if you have a claim and expect people to believe it, post credible sources. I've been waiting. Everything I can find from actual scholarly publications seems to point to there still being controversy/ongoing study. Everything that supports your argument is an opinion piece written as a philosophy paper or the like. You can't just keep saying, "studies show." What studies? Where are the links? You think I'm just sitting too firmly on the fence, but you just keep saying shit without backing it up.

You're the one doubting the IOC, which is what the poll is about. The burden is on you because you are making the claim that they could be wrong. You can't even explain why you have doubt.

Wrong. I haven't made a single, solitary claim. Saying someone *could* be wrong isn't saying they are. You are claiming they are right, but none of you can be bothered to provide a single link to a peer-reviewed study on the topic, so . . .

Khemical, are you for real? You guys can just keep saying whatever you want until the cows come home. It doesn't make it true. Who just makes a decision on a subject based on some randoms on the Internet, one of whom is so angry and sanctimonious that it's hard to take her seriously, and the other of which just keeps repeating himself and telling people they are wrong without actually referencing these mythical studies he keeps mentioning? Cite your sources. A decision made by an organization doesn't count. You can cite the studies that led to that decision, assuming they were done correctly, were peer-reviewed, etc. I'm not going to do your research for you.