Trans athletes in women's sports speak out - RT documentary

In the US girls are TWICE as likely to drop out of sports by age 14

All the more reason to let trans girls compete to make up the numbers.

[quote SunsetBeetch]USA Today (features RM/VI):

'There's nothing to be fearful of': Parents and activists fight to keep transgender girls in school sports'

eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/28/transgender-sports-lawmakers-target-girls-playing-high-school-sports/6995760002/[/quote]
They should do that "Most kids stop playing sports around middle school" table in that article for males and females to show where the real problem is.

In the US girls are TWICE as likely to drop out of sports by age 14:

www.forbes.com/sites/alanaglass/2020/01/15/girls-in-sports-are-more-likely-to-drop-outgood-sports-wants-to-change-that/?sh=3e9fc48f2c9e

[quote NecessaryScene1]It makes it look as if something is being done to bring the male athlete down to the level of a comparable female but in practice it doesn’t actually do that as the scientific research shows.

But this is what many orgs have as their current policy, following the IOC's lead, which was based (entirely?) on one very sketchy paper by Harper.

That was extremely obviously flawed at the time, and lots of following work has being done which shows clearly that the male advantage is not negated by testosterone suppression.

The reviews by Hilton & Lundberg, and a new review by Harper, both are quite conclusive.

(Still find it hard to say "Hilton" all seriously, rather than "FondOfBeetles"... It's weird being in a community where people start off anonymous then gradually decloak and turn out to be key researchers).

Emma's thread on the two papers:

twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1368174222992961547[/quote]
So when the extremely poor quality evidence says transwomen can compete in women's sport they follow it, but when the much higher quality new evidence says its unfair and unsafe, they ignore it (except World Rugby).

Why?

It makes it look as if something is being done to bring the male athlete down to the level of a comparable female but in practice it doesn’t actually do that as the scientific research shows.

But this is what many orgs have as their current policy, following the IOC's lead, which was based (entirely?) on one very sketchy paper by Harper.

That was extremely obviously flawed at the time, and lots of following work has being done which shows clearly that the male advantage is not negated by testosterone suppression.

The reviews by Hilton & Lundberg, and a new review by Harper, both are quite conclusive.

(Still find it hard to say "Hilton" all seriously, rather than "FondOfBeetles"... It's weird being in a community where people start off anonymous then gradually decloak and turn out to be key researchers).

Emma's thread on the two papers:

twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1368174222992961547

Time for the handy guide again!

Can a tranawoman ever lower their testosterone to the level of a cis woman ( i use cis here only for clarification i abhor it). And if not could female level testosterone be made a requirement to compete in women's sports?

There’s a few porkies in there. Since when did Ivy input into the IOC policy?

"Featuring Rachel McKinnon / Veronica Ivy".

No. Not possible.

Wow what a truly balanced programme .. NOT! What a load of baloney.

Oh for the confidence of a mediocre man.

And here is RM/VI 2 years ago arguing for no lowering of testosterone. Enjoy.

What a weird comparison with Michael Phelps. Sure, he’s got physical attributes that make swimming an ideal sport for him (guess that’s why he didn’t try out for gymnastics), let alone other factors like excellent technique, strong work ethic, low lactic acid - but it’s in no way comparable to VI competing in women’s sport?

Phelps has genuinely got a very rare physiology that makes him uniquely suited to swimming.

VI has, um, not got a physiology that makes VI uniquely suited to cycling. There must be several hundred million human male bodies that are better adapted for the sport. VI's unique quality is not their physiology or their dedication to their sport and certainly not their performance in the sport, but their shamelessness. If there were world shamelessness championships no one could object to them winning, I think. But cycling championships? Fuck off.

From the university report (leaving aside the dismal section on 'service'):

You challenge this argument in many ways, but you also have thus far evaded what might seem like the theoretically most important question: what is the normative basis for the distinction between men’s and women’s sports? You argue that the distinction simply exists as a practice, and thus should be governed by the same legal and human rights standards that should govern all our practices. And you argue that the supposed normative basis is not the historically or empirically true one , that women’s sports were in fact invented to keep women in a subordinate position. But none of this challenges your opponents’ conviction that the above standard should be the normative basis for what they understand as the justified distinction between men’s and women’s sports. None of it takes up the question of whether you think there is any normative justification for, and thus should be, a distinction between men’s and women’s sports. Maybe you don’t have to have an answer of your own to this question, but then you need a compelling answer to the question of why you don’t have to answer it.

Just watched the video. So many funny moments. Do they think they come across well, I wonder? I mean, they cooperated and got to say what they wanted. I don't think they could blame editing for their position failing to stack up at all in any way.

Rachel McKinnon/Veronica Ivy's unpublished (!) doctoral thesis is titled:

"Reasonable Assertions: On Norms of Assertion and Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About"

I am not joking.

Here is a direct quote from the abstract of said thesis:

“Similarly, I argue, whether one's assertion is true or false is not strictly relevant to the normative evaluation of an assertion.”

uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6619

Lost

They never then point out that if a woman had exactly the same proportions of Phelps' body, she would still not beat him.

She would not have all the other male benefits starting at types of muscle, lung capacity and v-max, etc etc etc. It is a completely irrelevant distraction. Rather disappointing that a supposed academic would even use it as a comparator, unless they are counting on people not thinking critically about it.

What a weird comparison with Michael Phelps. Sure, he’s got physical attributes that make swimming an ideal sport for him (guess that’s why he didn’t try out for gymnastics), let alone other factors like excellent technique, strong work ethic, low lactic acid - but it’s in no way comparable to VI competing in women’s sport?

I watched it all.

My thoughts were that they really needed an expert medical viewpoint on the cyclists claims. They were making all sorts of statements as ‘fact’, I’d have liked to have heard someone give some facts that had data attached to it.

Also the power lifter. They didn’t even claim they were a TW in the beginning of the video. They said they were gender fluid depending on the day. Interesting then that when a third category wax suggested they then claimed TWAW. Do they ever compete as a man I wonder? 🤔

It’s extremely difficult to get rid of tenured faculty in a US context (VI was an associate professor which means tenured). Usually it means you did something really majorly wrong, like many complaints, failure to do the basics of your job, etc. If VI refused to teach classes VI was booked to teach that is certainly something, but I don’t think it would be enough at my U for example. They usually want to work with you to avoid a lawsuit. The fact The university basically sued HER for the cost of the courses she didn’t teach and merely had to waive these fees definitely says something about how the legal wrangling went (not in VIs favor)...