Female athletes and testosterone

Since the best known British Cycling actual medical doctor is Richard Freeman, who claimed under oath to be unaware that testosterone could be used as a performance enhancing drug and had a habit of mislaying laptops containing confidential patient details

I see Freeman has been struck off. I knew British Cycling were sexist. They appear to be stupid as well. I hope Brian Facer as the new CEO can sort this out, he's certainly got plenty of issues to deal with by the look of it.

PennineSpring

"The victory caps a rollercoaster journey for Shriever, who left the GB setup to go solo in 2019 and aimed to raise £50,000 via crowdfunding to enable her to even compete after Team GB decided only to fund male riders."

Why does that fail to shock me, given the way British Cycling has treated other female riders in the past.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9842717/Olympic-stars-bumpy-road-BMX-glory-Gold-medal-winning-hero-Beth-Shriever.html

Another example of British Cycling’s fair and inclusive environment for female athletes…oh silly me, of course not.

And meanwhile the women's Olympic road race was won by a magnificent young woman who couldn't get a place on a professional team.

46! FFS

I hadn't come across Natalie van Gogh before and have to declare myself slightly gobsmacked that there's been at least one transwoman displacing women from team contracts and podium places in women's professional road cycling for at least twelve years.

KohlaParasanda

"It was rather sobering to watch the women's Olympic road race today and think, "This could be the last time all the participants in this event are female."

In theory it could have happened. Let me introduce you to Natalie Van Gogh, who at the age of 46, still competes for a UCI European pro team in Holland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_van_Gogh

Since the best known British Cycling actual medical doctor is Richard Freeman, who claimed under oath to be unaware that testosterone could be used as a performance enhancing drug and had a habit of mislaying laptops containing confidential patient details

what a surprise!

Gonad the Gaul: If British Cycling are stupid enough to have taken papers like McKinnon's or Harper 2015 at face value then they really deserve to be ridiculed across the globe. They presumably have actual sports scientists and medial doctors who work for/with them who could tell them some facts about the human body and its biology, unless they only employ or work with quacks.

Since the best known British Cycling actual medical doctor is Richard Freeman, who claimed under oath to be unaware that testosterone could be used as a performance enhancing drug and had a habit of mislaying laptops containing confidential patient details, I wouldn't have a great deal of confidence. Sports medicine at professional level appears to require a very different ethos from that required of most doctors.

It was rather sobering to watch the women's Olympic road race today and think, "This could be the last time all the participants in this event are female."

If British Cycling are stupid enough to have taken papers like McKinnon's or Harper 2015 at face value then they really deserve to be ridiculed across the globe. They presumably have actual sports scientists and medial doctors who work for/with them who could tell them some facts about the human body and its biology, unless they only employ or work with quacks.

We seem to be seeing a trend of denying reality within institutions as well as within individuals. They will take on board what they want to believe, regardless of its implausibility or the lack of relevant qualifications or experience of the person promoting it. They will ignore what they don't want to believe, regardless of how good the evidence is or the relevant expertise of the person with that evidence.

There was a thread on here a few weeks ago about an article in the BMJ by a non-binary doctor in the US, who was suggesting that there was no need to record sex in medicine anymore and that we should be recording gender and what organs a patient had. The rapid responses to the article rightly called this approach dangerous and ridiculous. The fact that we now have medical professionals, who have to know a lot about the biology of the human body in order to qualify and do the job, suggesting this is very worrying. This doctor clearly wants to deny their own biology, which is their own choice, but to call for medicine as a whole to start denying biology is very worrying. The bizarre editorial stance of some biomedicine journals in insisting on 'gender' instead of 'sex' (I can't remember which journal it was off the top of my head) is also part of it. These institutions and bodies are seemingly being guided by unscientific ideology instead of facts and evidence.

The problem for all these individuals and institutions is that biology, like gravity, doesn't give a stuff if you believe in it or not, it will still act on you in the same way.

GonadTheGaul

Back in 2018 when McKinnon "won" their first Masters title, I posted a thread about it on a cycling forum. I expected/hoped that most people would see how ridiculous the situation was. However, a sizeable minority of people pointed to McKinnon's qualifications in philosophy - The "Norms of assertion" rubbish. I stated that they were not at all qualified in biology, anatomy, physiology or for that matter any relevant science which could provide a credible report.
When they asked for my qualifications, I stated that my DW was qualified in biology and biotechnology, knows about DNA/RNA and knows fullwell that no human has ever changed sex.
I am convinced that British Cycling may have been influenced by such "research" if my phonecall to them was anything to go by.

The propagation of factually wrong information is interesting. McKinnon, a philosopher, writes a paper that contains some apparent misunderstandings of human biology in relation to testosterone levels. That paper is then taken by a cycling club and seems to have been further misunderstood to produce what looks like a referenced authoritative statement that male and female testosterone levels, on average, overlap. That statement goes into a letter which is then signed by several other clubs and organisations. I wonder how many of those clubs/organisations and their members, or readers of the open letter, now believe this statement? Was there anyone in any of those clubs or organisations who knew this statement was wrong, or who checked it and found it was wrong? Did anyone say anything about it and what happened? It just raises more questions for me.

Thanks for that Gonad. I had not seen that link before.

Sadly, I think cyclingmum came, dumped and pedaled off again. But as usual, never had anything useful to contribute.

Still, there does seem to be much discussion happening so I will keep on updating this thread to keep the information together.

Helleofabore

I've come across some of McKinnon's work when I read this open letter to British Cycling: www.velociposse.cc/open-letter-to-british-cycling when their transgender policy consultation was open. It claims there is an overlap between average testosterone levels in males and females, referencing this paper by McKinnon: www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Including-Trans-Women-Athletes-in-Competitive-the-McKinnon/ffc49cb067ccc681f59fe6ec569414bf6bc7ab76#extracted

McKinnon doesn't actually claim the average testosterone levels overlap, but claims that because there is some overlap between the low end of the male and high end of the 'female' ranges shown in some research papers cited, that testosterone levels 'completely overlap'. This overlap relies on a small number of abnormally high levels in the 'female' study participants, as well as a few abnormally low levels in male participants. McKinnon produces three figures in the paper which clearly show far higher average levels in males, and tries to suggest that because there is some overlap among the outliers ('complete overlap'), that testosterone levels are irrelevant. There's no questioning in McKinnon's paper as to why some of the 'female' athletes in the studies cited had abnormally high levels of testosterone, high enough that they must have been male, doping or had a serious medical problem in several cases. The fact that these results are clear outliers in the data is ignored. The glaring omission is that McKinnon doesn't even mention male puberty being the driver for the physiological and anatomical changes that confer the advantage, they seem to suggest that current testosterone levels ought to be the only factor, while simultaneously saying they are irrelevant.

McKinnon's basic argument at the end of the paper is that transwomen are women and that's why it's fair for them to be in women's sport, presumably recognising that trying to claim testosterone is irrelevant still doesn't actually justify including males in female categories.

However, cyclingmum did sound so very confident and was so certain that the studies were to be ignored because…. Well, they indicated a lack of credibility based on a supposed belief of one of the researchers.

It is also important to note that they did not comment AT ALL about Tommy Lundberg. That is usual too. Perhaps because he is a man who has the same beliefs that Dr Hilton has. No men get the same treatment it seems, I wonder if cyclingmum realises the misogyny there too.

It's interesting that cyclingmum would rather insult some female researchers instead of producing any critique of their work, or even citing work that tries to support the claim that transwomen should compete in female sport. It seems to be about some personal beef and nothing to do with the science. Having a valid criticism of somebody's research is fine but attempting to discredit their work simply because you don't like them (and maybe because they are female) is pretty low. The research should be approached on its own merits, not on one's personal opinion of one author.

Hubbard's bio, which strangely lists his dad as a sporting relative! It talks about his transition but claims he gave up weightlifting as a man at aged 23.
olympics.com/tokyo-2020/olympic-games/en/results/weightlifting/athlete-profile-n1465026-hubbard-laurel.htm
Emily's bio
olympics.com/tokyo-2020/olympic-games/en/results/weightlifting/athlete-profile-n1440043-campbell-emily-jade.htm

The age difference is stark!

Olympics weightlifting 2 Aug. Date for your diary and up against a Brit!

This is the WHRC twitter feed.

twitter.com/whrcuk?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I have just seen this on Twitter. I imagine there will be a female athlete somewhere willing to take this to court. If not one bumped out of the Olympics, there may be a female cyclist who may lose a place at next years Commonwealth Games when certain athletes hit the lower T thresholds and move into the female arena due to the shonky unfair rules.
I don’t know about you but I’d be very happy to give financial support to such a case.

www.womensdeclaration.com/en/resources/press-releases/23-july-2021/

Just going to add this here.

news.sky.com/story/laurel-hubbard-transgender-weightlifter-is-set-to-make-history-at-tokyo-olympics-but-does-she-have-unfair-advantage-12359559

Harper, who provided the now largely discredited research for inclusion into the olympics, is clear that they acknowledge the male physical advantage. However, they are still trying to justify their support by downplaying it as just like having left handed tennis players.

Of course, one day soon they will have to simply admit that they were wrong and that there is simply no way to prove the false premise for this inclusion and that there never was.

it will be too late for many girls and women by then though. And those refusing to believe what they call 'bigoted' science, will be entirely complicit by trying to silence others through shaming tactics. They too will have to admit that science when it gives such clear results that a trans researcher has to admit the same conclusions is just science, and it is not bigoted except for those choosing to call it thus.

GonadTheGaul

Yes. I know. Even people like McKinnon (a cyclist and was a university academic also) have admitted that the evidence is clear so far. I wonder if cyclingmum read that opinion also. McKinnon pointed out the inclusion was ‘vital’ for other reasons such as mental health and that women should effectively suck up the injustice.

However, cyclingmum did sound so very confident and was so certain that the studies were to be ignored because…. Well, they indicated a lack of credibility based on a supposed belief of one of the researchers.

It is also important to note that they did not comment AT ALL about Tommy Lundberg. That is usual too. Perhaps because he is a man who has the same beliefs that Dr Hilton has. No men get the same treatment it seems, I wonder if cyclingmum realises the misogyny there too.

So, I did think maybe, maybe I had missed something or it had just been released. I am genuinely keen to keep up with topic and hoped they might have their hands on something of interest.

Sadly though, it seems that we are still left with the most recent twist being some of the prominent males who compete with the females acknowledge the biological advantages they have. However, they look to ‘psychology and the philosophy’ disciplines to prove the validity of their inclusion.

But we see the same old trope wrung out here as usual.

There is no evidence. I had a look at some of the organisations promoting transwomen in women’s sports because I thought they might have evidence to back that up, but they don’t. They talk a lot about the benefits of sport and how sport and exercise might specifically benefit transgender people, but they have nothing to justify including anyone in a sex category that isn’t theirs, nothing to show that the performance advantages conferred by male puberty can be removed and nothing to show that competition can be either safe or fair for female athletes if transwomen are included. Athlete Ally admit in their own statement that their position is ideological and not scientific, presumably because they’ve realised that although they claim the science is wrong they cannot back up that statement with evidence because there isn’t any.

It’s just about deciding that biologically male people should be let into female sports because of an ideology, with no basis in science or reality, as far as I can tell. The fact that some posters turn up here with claims they can’t substantiate is no longer a surprise to me, as there is no substance.

No studies to refute those posters?

I am a bit disappointed because I did think that there must have been a new study released that disproved the other studies - ie. the two reviews of the 11 studies and the USAF study.

I did think also you might have something to prove the peer reviewed studied included in those 11 studies were in fact falsely stating they were studies including transwomen that you were so adamant were not studied when you said:

"Interesting studies" that do not include trans women, usually compare customers men with CIS woman. And usually by a particular biologist who isn't even able to fill in a conflict of interest statement correctly.

A bit of science drama of falsification or something. If I saw proof that they were falsified, I would indeed start to question the foundation of those studies.

I guess the intention of your posts were not to provide us with facts to discuss with us after all.

Wow. That is quite a list!

The ex junior champ's first serious race, the Commonwealth games next year I bet.

So, a male didn’t reach the cut for the male team but will no doubt make the female GB cycling team and there will go a GB female’s chances of representing her country.

And that woman (female, for those who struggle with the definition of “woman”) will miss out on the funding that would enable her to access all the support available to elite athletes.