Save female sports evidence thread

CHILDREN’s MUSCLE STRENGTH DIFFERENCES DUE TO SEX

Sex Differences in Upper- and Lower-Limb Muscle Strength in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis

James L. Nuzzo, April 2025

ABSTRACT

On average, adult men are physically stronger than adult women. The magnitude of this difference depends on the muscle tested, with larger sex differences observed in upper- than lower-limb muscles. Whether body region-specific sex differences in strength exist in children is unclear. The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to determine whether sex differences in muscle strength in children and adolescents differ between upper- and lower-limb muscles. Data were extracted from studies of participants aged ≤ 17 years who completed tests of maximal isometric or isokinetic strength of upper-limb muscles (e.g., elbow flexors and elbow extensors) or lower-limb muscles (e.g., knee extensors and ankle dorsiflexors). Participants were partitioned into three age groups: 5–10 years old, 11–13 years old, and 14–17 years old. The analysis included 299 effects from 34 studies. The total sample was 6634 (3497 boys and 3137 girls). Effect sizes of sex differences in upper- and lower-limb strength were g = 0.65 (95% confidence intervals (CI) [0.46, 0.84]) and 0.34 (95% CI [0.19, 0.50]) in 5–10-year-olds; g = 0.73 (95% CI [0.56, 0.91]) and 0.43 (95% CI [0.27, 0.59]) in 11–13-year olds; and g = 1.84 (95% CI [1.64, 2.03]) and 1.18 (95% CI [1.00, 1.37]) in 14–17-year-olds. Upper- and lower-limb strength were 17% and 8% greater in boys than girls when 5–10 years old, 18% and 10% greater when 11–13 years old, and 50% and 30% greater when 14–17 years old. Thus, boys are stronger than girls on average. This sex difference exists before puberty, increases markedly with male puberty, and is more pronounced in upper- than lower-limb muscles throughout development.

Summary

-Before, during, and after puberty, boys are stronger than girls on average.

-The sex difference in muscle strength increases markedly with male puberty, averaging ∼10% in 5–10-year-olds and then ∼40% in 14–17-year-olds.

-Throughout development, sex differences in strength are more pronounced in upper- than lower-limb muscles.

Conclusion

Muscle strength is greater in boys than girls before, during, and after puberty, though the presence of this sex difference is more certain after puberty. At all stages of development, the difference is greater in upper- than lower-limb muscles. Between 5 and 13 years old, boys have, on average, 17%–18% greater upper-limb strength than girls and 8%–10% greater lower-limb strength. Male puberty causes the sex difference in muscle strength to increase dramatically, such that, between the ages of 14–17 years, boys have, on average, 50% greater upper-limb strength than girls and 30% greater lower-limb strength. Sex differences in body height, body mass, and body composition are the likely causes of greater muscle strength in boys than girls throughout development.

https://x.com/mara_yamauchi/status/1988217357043724386?s=20

Some very clear points mentioned:

Mara says, "I'm here with a lot of my fellow sex realists. We are quietly protesting against parkrun's gender self ID categories. Any male if he says he's a woman or even if he doesn't say he's a woman, any male is welcome in the female category."

"Official results are published every week in descending order of speed. The rankings mean in reality it is a race and that is unfair for women and girls."

And then

"You can call it anything you like, but the facts of Parkrun are, measured courses, start and finish line."

Other brave women also keep raising the valid points such as:

"it's a race if you run it like a race"

and

"That opportunity to treat it like a race should be there for everybody because it is there for men"

We have had this discussion on MN numerous times now where people remind us that Parkrun have stated that they are 'not a race' and are not competitive events. However, if there is any ranking at all, and any records kept and/or published, this makes the events a competitive regardless of the denial by Parkrun.

This is a protest to highlight the clear discrepancy between what Parkrun say and what they do.

THE OLYMPIC TIMELINE ON THE INCLUSION OF MALE PEOPLE IN FEMALE SPORT (AWAITING IOC CONFIRMATION IN WINTER 2026)

Just to recap how we got here in my opinion

1992 - Dr. Arne Ljungqvist becomes a member of the IOC and continue to date an educational program to inform the IOC about scientific and
ethical issues related to laboratory-based gender verification.

1996 - Most major professional medical societies have passed resolutions against chromosome-based gender screening in sports.

1996-1997 - IOC World Congress on Woman and Sport passes a resolution to abandon gender verification at the Olympics. Women's Sports Foundation
publishes a policy statement against blanket chromosome screening in support of IAAF model. The Norwegian parliament outlaws gender verification in sport. The IOC Medical Commission is unconvinced and the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games is contractually committed to on-site, laboratory-based, gender veritication of all female althletes competing in women's events.

1997-1998 - Arguments for and against change are presented to the IOC Athlete Commission by Professor A. Liungqvist and Dr. B. Dingeon, respectively. Prince de Merode and Dr. Hay argue for their original policy of blanket gender verification at IOC-sponsored sporting events. Athletes Commission nonetheless calls for the discontinuation of the present system and rccommenda replacing it with a "reserve clause" system based on IOC Medical Commission intervention on an individualized basis, following scientific and ethical guidelines.

1999 - IOC Executive Board accepts unanimous recommendations of its Athletes Commission. Blanket gender verification screening of all female
athletes will not be conducted at the 2000 Millennia1 Games in Sydney, on a conditional basis for later review.

Importantly, for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics they surveyed the female athletes and found:

"At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not
they were made anxious by the testing procedure. Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure. Forty-six athletes were made "anxious" by the testing requirements that preceded their competitive events.

No males were found to masquerade as females, and all females who were found to be SRY positive competed."

"Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued"

www.nature.com/articles/gim2000258.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100045542&CJEVENT=f4d4c8630a0411ed831b01a80a1c0e11

2003 - Stockholm Consensus proposal

"In 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical Commission, claiming guidance from “the best information available at the time,” decided to allow male transsexuals to compete in the women’s category. This decision was contingent upon several conditions to ensure fairness: a) the removal of their testes at least two years prior to competition; b) legal recognition as “female”; and c) hormone profiles aligned with those of natal females."

archive.today/F5HFc

2004 - May 2004 they announce that they will allowed male people who surgically removed their testes to compete in female competition. Because once you allow one group of male people in, you must equally allow the other in or you are discriminating against transgender people.

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex-1

2015 -Then in 2015, a campaign group including Harper, using Harper’s flawed study (see nequals8.com web site) convinces the IOC that it is unfair discrimination to exclude any male with a transgender identity describing themselves as a woman. The IOC changes the policy to allow them.

https://nequals8.com

^https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes^

https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

2016 -Then came the Rio trio in the female 800m and we start to see the testosterone suppression of the male people with DSDs come in. Semenya takes this to court in 2019. Appealed 2020. The evidence presented confirmed 5ARD and testosterone of 21 nmol/L.

2021 - 2020 Tokyo games held in 2021 was the testosterone suppressed games. Hubbard, a late 40 something male in female event where next youngest was probably a decade and a half younger, shines light on the issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/29/ioc-praises-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-ahead-of-transgender-athletes-olympic-debut

The IOC reacts by announcing a review.

The new guidelines released Nov 2021 devolve responsibility for policy to each discipline’s international federation. ie. They force the sporting federations to make the hard decisions that the IOC refuse to make.

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf#_ga=2.219716894.621299853.1686571450-594927581.1678187184

They also reaffirm that 'inclusivity' is their over all priority. They say that safety is as well, but this is clearly contradictory when you consider boxing as an example.

The IOC is clear that they RECOGNISE that the inclusion of male athletes will be UNFAIR but their priority is inclusion. Richard Budgett said this.

The federations then develop their own policies. that have done this are : FINA, WA, UCI, IBA and WR. FIFA for instance announced a review years ago and done nothing. IBA announced their new policy in 22/23.

The WA have even stated that their new guidelines for the Olympics immediately excluded 13 males with DSDs with testosterone advantage from the competitions until those 13 male athletes chose to reduce their testosterone to 2.5 nmol/L for 2 years. 13 just in athletics competitions alone! (By the way, this reduction has already been shown to not eliminate unfair male advantage, but this is where we are at the moment.)

By the IOC removing the IBA from organising the boxing, the IOC left boxing only with the IOC inclusive guidelines.

So, we know from the announcement by Budgett from IOC in November 2021 that fairness was a lower priority to inclusion. It was along the lines of ‘we know it is unfair to include male people with pubertal advantage, but inclusion is our aim.’

And the IOC and other organisations still claim that Semenya is a 'female with naturally high testosterone' to this day. Despite the world being easily able to find the evidence presented to the CAS that Semenya is MALE with 5-ARD and had tested with a testosterone level of 21nmol/L. NO female has that level and is healthy. They are likely to be gravely ill.

2025 - Kirsty Coventry announces that she will 'protect' women's sport and that a committee will review the evidence.

10th November news has started to filter out that the IOC will exclude all male people

'The International Olympic Committee is set to announce a ban on transgender women in female competition early next year after a science-based review of evidence about permanent physical advantages of being born male.

The IOC’s guidance to Olympic sports has until now been that transgender women can compete with reduced testosterone levels but leaves it up to individual sports to decide. That is now set to change under its new president, Kirsty Coventry, who has promised to protect the female category.

The committee’s medical and scientific director, Dr Jane Thornton, last week presented to IOC members at a meeting in Lausanne the initial findings of a science-based review into the issues of transgender athletes and athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) competing in female sport."

and

"It is understood the IOC is likely to announce its new policy early in the new year, possibly around the IOC session at the Milan-Cortina winter Olympics in early February.

Some work remains to be done to ensure the new policy is legally watertight. Until now the IOC’s policy has been based on recommendations and guidance to sports rather than actually being part of its eligibility rules."

and

“The new policy is also likely to cover DSD (differences of sex development) athletes — those who were raised as girls from birth but have male chromosomes and male levels of testosterone.”

https://archive.ph/kGpyI for the Times article above.

http://archive.today/TNLMM for the Telegraph article

TRANSWOMEN ARE DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE AFTER TREATMENT THEY ARE UNDERPOWERED

A thread by Dr Emma Hilton. 1:25 PM · Nov 4, 2025

The claim that won't die: trans-identifying males are "underpowered" and therefore "disadvantaged" in sport.

"One can imagine a large car with a small engine competing against a small car with a small engine, and that summarizes the playing field." Joanna Harper, Huff Post, 2016.

"You have a bigger body, and you have a smaller engine to move that vehicle around." Yannis Pitsiladis, BBC, 2019.

"giving trans women the disadvantage of having to power larger skeletal frames with reduced strength and aerobic capacity." Jamie Agapoff, 2025.

What happens when a trans-identifying male suppresses testosterone? They lose a bit of muscle mass. Their haemoglobin drops to female-typical levels. The claim that won't die rests on the idea that trans-identifying males retain their skeletal frame and most of their muscle mass, but become unable to move it around a sports fields, rendering them "disadvantaged".

The words "underpowered" and therefore "disadvantaged" are carefully chosen, and typically leave the reader to infer that this means "underpowered" and therefore "disadvantaged" compared to females. So it's fair to have them in female sport, right?

Wrong.

When a given trans-identifying male loses some muscle mass and some oxygen-carrying capacity - and assuming he doesn't counter by increasing training load - he will indeed feel it more of a struggle to transport his male body around. His relative performance (whether that's relative strength or whatever) will decrease. So per kg of bodyweight, his deadlift gets worse.

But that doesn't make him "underpowered" and therefore "disadvantaged" compared to females. It makes him "lower powered" and therefore "disadvantaged" compared to his former performance.

What would have to happen to make a trans-identifying male genuinely "underpowered" compared to females. Let's take a female of the same skeletal size/shape and activity. She carries X amount of muscle mass to shift her body around.

To become "underpowered", T suppression would not simply have to reduce muscle mass in the trans-identifying male to female levels (and it doesn't anyway), it would have to 'overshoot' female levels. That is, he would need to end up with lower muscle mass than his female peer to become "underpowered" compared to her.

There is simply no reason to argue this is plausible. There is no particular biological mechanism that would support his final muscle mass being lower than a female comparator. And the estrogen he takes likely protects his existing muscle mass anyway.

The same argument applies to hemoglobin, although here, the trans-identifying male does meet female levels. Well, Hb isn't the only contributor to CV capacity (stroke volume, blood volume, lung surface etc). But even it was, it wouldn't make him "underpowered" compared to his female comparator.

Beware the tricksy words used in the claim that won't die. Trans-identifying males might have lesser relative power than they used to possess. But the disadvantage is against their former self, not compared to females.

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1985700002576957445

DIFFERENCE IN HANDGRIP STRENGTH NOTED EVEN BEFORE PUBERTY

Interesting research and important when discussing inclusion of male athletes who have not experienced male puberty / androgenisation in female sports.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.70155

When and Why Do Sex Differences in Handgrip Strength Emerge? Age-Varying Effects of Testosterone From Childhood to Older Adulthood

Jun Seob Song, Heontae Kim, Myungjin Jung

First published: 06 October 2025

ABSTRACT
Objectives : On average, males are stronger than females, with hormonal changes during puberty often cited as a contributing factor to this advantage. However, not all evidence consistently supports this explanation. The purpose of this study was to determine (1) when sex differences in handgrip strength and testosterone emerge, and (2) whether testosterone mediates the sex difference in handgrip strength and if this effect varies across age.

Methods : Time-varying effect modeling (TVEM) was used to examine age-specific trajectories of handgrip strength and testosterone, and to assess whether these trajectories differed by sex. A moderated mediation analysis was conducted to test whether the sex difference in handgrip strength was mediated by testosterone level, and whether this effect varied across age. Data were drawn from the 2011–2012 and 2013–2014 cycles (N = 11,035) of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Results : TVEM indicated that the sex difference in handgrip strength emerged at age 8, whereas the sex difference in testosterone level became evident at age 10. A moderated mediation analysis revealed that testosterone mediated the association between sex and handgrip strength, and this effect decreased with age (IMM = −0.18, 95% CI: −0.20, −0.16).

Conclusion : Sex difference in handgrip strength appears to be driven, in part, by the testosterone levels. However, this difference can be observed even before the onset of puberty, which suggests that testosterone alone does not fully explain the sex difference in muscle strength. This finding may have important implications for decisions regarding inclusivity and fairness in sports that emphasize strength.

IS INCLUSIVE ALWAYS ‘INCLUSIVE’

A good explainer from Jon Pike.

https://x.com/sportseenuk/status/1978358073887502530?s=46

Jon points out that there is no pressure at all on Paralympic Events to make them inclusive to able bodied people and people would be rightly uncomfortable with pressure to include able bodied people who have limited their abilities in Paralympic events.

He poses the question why female events have been singled out to allow a group of male people who have limited their abilities to access the protected events for female athletes.

SEX DIFFERENCES IN DISC GOLF EVEN FROM AGE 10

Sex Differences in Disc Golf Performance: Implications for Eligibility Criteria for Women's Competitions

Tommy R. Lundberg & Justin Menickelli

25th July 2025

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.70008

Summary

Marked sex differences in disc golf performance were observed, with males significantly outperforming females in player rating, throwing distance, and accuracy at both professional and amateur levels.

The differences in performance were evident from a young age, with boys performing better than girls in the junior divisions from the age of 10.

This study provides data that can inform policy decisions on eligibility criteria for women's disc golf competitions.

Conclusions
We report significant sex differences in disc golf performance, with males outperforming females in player rating and throwing distance at both professional and amateur levels. Differences in throwing accuracy and putting consistency (fairway hits and circle 1X putting) are smaller but still considerable, and large sex differences are observed in preadolescent juniors. These differences are likely explained by male advantages in muscle size, stature, arm span, and fiber type composition. Consequently, disc golf organizations are faced with the task of formulating eligibility criteria for women's competitions, considering the tension between inclusion of athletes in female sport based on gender identity and maintaining fairness in competition. This may ultimately require a conscious choice between these two objectives, as it seems that fair competition may not be reconciled with either self-identification or testosterone suppression. Thus, if fairness is the primary objective, the current results suggest that the women category should be for females only.

A video reminder from ICONS

ANOTHER STUDY THAT MALE CHILDREN HAVE PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE

Sex Differences in 1600-m Running Performance and Participation for Children Aged 6–12 yr

Christensen, Mandy W.; Griffiths, Christine M

Summer 2025

journals.lww.com/acsm-esm/fulltext/2025/07000/sex_differences_in_1600_m_running_performance_and.5.aspx

Abstract

Introduction

In children, females participate in sport and physical activity less than males and have lower peak oxygen intake values. How this sexual dimorphism in the aerobic capacity of children affects the aerobic performances of children in a 1600-m race and whether the reported discrepancy in sport and physical activity participation accounts for any sex differences in aerobic performance are unknown. The purpose of this study was to 1) identify sex-based differences in aerobic running performance at 1600 m for children aged 6–12 yr and 2) investigate sex-based differences in participation in children and any relationship between participation and sex differences in aerobic performance.

Methods

We compared 1600-m running velocities (in m·s−1) and participation for 3621 children in the United States in grades 1–6 (ages 6–12 yr) for the years 2007–2014 that were obtained from a publicly available website (runnercard). We correlated the female participation with the performance difference between the sexes for each year and grade. We also created a mathematical model to predict the mean velocity () needed to equalize the sex difference in performance if participation was equalized.

Results

Male children were faster (3.00 ± 0.53 m·s−1) than female children (2.77 ± 0.49 m·s−1) at every grade level, with an average difference of 7.7% (P < 0.001). Participation was lower for female children (46.2%; χ2 = 13.0, P = 0.02) and there was no correlation between female participation and the performance difference between sexes (Pearson’s r= 0.255, P = 0.96). needed to equalize the sex difference in performance if participation was equalized was 4.39 m·s−1, which was greater than the observed female mean plus two standard deviations.

Conclusions

Male children are faster than female children at running 1600 m at ages 6–12 yr. This sex difference was not a result of lower female participation and suggests that innate physiological sex differences may be responsible.

VIDEO ON SPORTS SEX TESTING

www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/sex-screening-in-sports

This video is a good resource for anyone who wants to know about sex testing protocols in sport.

Specific dates leading up to the cessation of sex testing were:

1992 - Dr. Arne Ljungqvist becomes a member of the IOC and continue5 to date an educational program to inform the IOC about scientific and
ethical issues related to laboratory-based gender verification.

1996 - Most major professional medical societies have passed resolutions against chromosome-based gender screening in sports.

1996-1997 - IOC World Congress on Woman and Sport passes a resolution to abandon gender verification at the Olympics. Women's Sports Foundation
publishes a policy statement against blanket chromosome screening in support of IAAF model. The Norwegian parliament outlaws gender verification in sport. The IOC Medical Commission is unconvinced and the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games is contractually committed to on-site, laboratory-based, gender veritication of all female althletes competing in women's events.

1997-1998 - Arguments for and against change are presented to the IOC Athlete5 Commission by Professor A. Liungqvist and Dr. B. Dingeon, respectively. Prince de Merode and Dr. Hay argue for their original policy of blanket gender verification at IOC-sponsored sporting events. Athletes
Commission nonetheless calls for the discontinuation of the present system and rccommenda replacing it with a "reserve clause" system based on IOC Medical Commission intervention on an individualized basis, following scientific and ethical guidelines.

1999 - IOC Executive Board accepts unanimous recommendations of its Athletes Commission. Blanket gender verification screening of all female
athletes will not be conducted at the 2000 Millennia1 Games in Sydney, on a conditional basis for later review.

Importantly, for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics they surveyed the female athletes and found:

"At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not
they were made anxious by the testing procedure. Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure. Forty-six athletes were made "anxious" by the testing requirements that preceded their competitive events.
No males were found to masquerade as females, and all females who were found to be SRY positive competed."

"Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued"

They didn't listen to female athletes it seems.

ROSS TUCKER ON ‘FAIR COMPETITION’ and ‘COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE and the FA policy

Ross Tucker (Science of Sport)
07:22 16/4/2025

“The FA policy that allows males into women's football is shambolic. One of the most revealing docs you'll ever read on this issue. Convoluted & illogical, it is a shrine to cowardice, intellectual dishonesty & their attitude towards women's sport. “

“It asks the person who is male, playing against women, to sign a document saying they accept increased risk that arises from sex differences. Yes, the male. Not the woman, who faces that risk without the ability to consent, or even know they're facing it.”

“It does so in an Appendix, which is to be signed by female players who "wish to play football in the men's game". It clearly recognizes consequences of sex differences, with their safety (and unfairness) implications for females. Males into women's football? No problem for women.”

“Why no problem? Because of this 'nifty' loophole they think they've created, where "match observation" will ensure that no player presents a safety or fairness risk created by that (recognized) male advantage. This is the case-by-case fallacy, which women should reject outright.”

“So many issues arise out of this delusion, but one (of many) that women should reject is that this "exemption on the basis of relative mediocrity" warps the entire premise of their sports category. It means a Tier D footballer with male advantage can play Tier A women's football.”

“"Male footballer in the 5th division?"”

“"No problem, you'll fit right in with 2nd division females" (who are strong, fast, athletic, trained, and relatively superior to you, despite your male advantage).”

“Imagine telling a heavyweights they can fight middleweight boxers, because they're not all that good, so it's fair to fight down, just don't be too strong, powerful or good. “

“It's preposterous.”

“And the FA are doing it to women.”

“A policy fuelled by a concoction of ignorance, cowardice and weird misplaced good intention - a group of people have discussed it and said "Male advantage is clear, that's the reality. Let's find a way around it, and we'll also have to get signed waivers, just not from women"”

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/1912391069595021565?s=46

Adding this insightful email from WoLF to the fact checker for the Jon Oliver show. I found it quite interesting as a non-academic reply to some of the tropish questioning we see.

https://womensliberationfront.org/news/last-week-tonight-contacts-wolf-seeking-comment-on-womens-sports

https://archive.is/xfEqu

Particularly this part:

The requirement to accommodate 'trans inclusion' in sports is only being forced on one sex: women. Why is that? Why don't we see FIFA Men's World Cup teams flooded with women identifying as men, demanding to get on the pitch? Where are all the former female athletes, now 'transgender', in the NFL, AFL, Canadian hockey leagues, US basketball leagues, and heavyweight boxing championships? No women are walking off the field with men's medals. It's only men taking medals from women. We'd love to understand the mental pretzel people are operating within where they don't see this as sexist oppression. There is an absolute conflict with women's sex-based rights when gender ideology vaults 'transgender' as a new and supreme protected class over women and girls. Radical feminists always have known this was a problem and we've been pushing back for ages.

The framing of your questions indicates you seek to discredit SheWon.org because volunteers put it together. You question its accuracy and some of the ways it calculates the loss to women and girls. But you missed that sports authorities and organizations like the NCAA and IOC aren't compiling that data, as they've obliterated sex with gender identity. There is an implied sense of outrage in your questions - how dare women keep track of stolen sports titles!

That smacks of Progressive Misogyny.

You questioned why stats are being compiled on more than one medal lost when a male wins a women's competition. There's a ripple effect from introducing an element (men) to women's sports competition that should never have been there:

1. The female that would have been the winner, if not for a male competing, is now knocked into second place.
2. That knocks the second place female winner into third place.
3. Which then knocks the third place female athlete off the podium completely.

Plus the woman or girl who never got to compete at all, and the ones who choose not to for their own safety or dignity! When you think about the girls who never competed because of this newly erected barrier of having to face males in competition as a female, just counting lost titles actually UNDER counts the number of impacted female athletes.

There are so few opportunities for female sports scholarships and monetary prizes that this male colonization of the tiny bit of terrain female sports occupies is particularly cruel. This is happening globally.

Progressive misogyny is misogyny, and as feminists, we reject it every bit as much as we reject restrictions on our reproductive rights, commercial sexual exploitation of women by men, and male violence against women.

Men have learned that they can enter women's sports by just saying they are women now. Some men game that. Other men try to expose the fallacy of 'inclusivity' in women's sports.
Humans can't change sex, but will absolutely game a system that seems tailor-made for them to do so. Southpark aptly illustrated how men will enter and dominate women's sports by saying they're now women in the "Go Strong Woman, Go" episode in 2019.

Men who know inclusion of males in women's sports under the banner of trans is a farce are trying to show the world just how idiotic forced 'inclusion' is. In 2023, male powerlifting coach Avi Silverberg entered the female competition to openly mock Canada's policy of letting any men who identify as a woman into women's sports. He was allowed to compete, and of course he dominated. He then gave numerous interviews to media precisely to expose how wrong it is to let men like him compete against women.

We play sports with our bodies, not our identities. We hosted a great speaker in October, Dr. Greg Brown, a sports medicine specialist at the University of Nebraska. His talk was "Males and female's bodies are different, and that matters in sports." You can see it here:

His research showed that even after taking opposite-sex hormones, trans-identifying males still outperformed top female athletes.

Summing up, there is just no fairness possible when males are allowed to compete with women in women's sports categories.

What about other categories besides sports on shewon.org?

Title IX in the USA was passed to give girls a chance to play sports. Before it passed, girls had no places to practice and compete. They had to wait until boys weren't using those spaces. Girls wore the hand-me-down jerseys of boy teams. Title IX made sports possible for girls. All kinds of activities for women and girls to enjoy and compete in have sprung up since then. The gain here in providing opportunities for women and girls being able to participate and achieve in all aspects of public life cannot be underestimated. This righted centuries of exclusion of women and girls. It's unbelievably ironic that males now seek to colonize all things female, and any objection by women is met with threats, silencing, and ostracization, mostly by men, which serves to exclude women and girls from public participation. To us, this is absolutely oppression of females, erupting in new form.

(Incidentally, it was because of this media request that it was discovered that D (Dee) Brent is a male researcher who claims to be a woman. Brent is one of the ‘fact checkers’ for John Oliver.)

link

https://x.com/hecheateddotorg/status/1901812945627017432

Really important Britinme, especially for Maine. Best of luck.

AN ANALYSIS ON HOW JUST A FEW MALE PEOPLE CAN CAUSE HARM TO MANY FEMALE ATHLETES - THE FALSITY OF 'JUST ONE'

@hecheateddotorg
18th March 2025

To analyze performance differences between "trans"-identified male and actual female participants in girls' sport, we need look no further than girls' high school track and field.

Track and field provides the clearest data as it is an individual sport and has had the highest number of recorded male participants to date at the high school level.

There are a total of 37 male athletes on record who have participated in girls' high school track and field in the United States.

Of these 37, one athlete participated in only one race due to the cancellation of the season during the COVID 19 pandemic. Another athlete participated in a tech/private school league that did not participate in a state championship. These two athletes will be excluded from the data.

Out of 1,276 completed events, male athletes finished as follows:

1st place: 440 (34%)
2nd place: 188 (15%)
3rd place: 123 (10%)
Other: 485 (41%)

Male athletes came in 1st 34% of the time, only 7% less often than they did than any other place outside the top 3.

They finished in the top three in 59% of their events and outside the top eight in only 19% of their events.

24 of the 35 male athletes (68%) qualified for their respective State Championship meet in a total of 136 events.

When looking at athletes competing against same-sex peers, depending on the state and division of competition, anywhere from 5 to 15% of athletes are expected to qualify.

For example in states that use regional-sectional qualification, the top 4 finishers at a regional meet (often with 2 heats of 8 runners each) qualify for the sectional meet where the top 4 finishers at the sectional then advance to State. This means that out of 32 runners at regionals, only 4 (12.5%) will advance to State.

This number also does not take into account the fact that only the best runners on a team will be entered in a regional meet and often the same runner will qualify in multiple events. A runner may also have a higher chance of qualifying in a relay as 8 runners (top 2 teams) advance to state rather than 4 in this type of qualification.

In other types of qualification or less competitive, smaller regions, it may be easier to qualify.

At the State Championship meet, there are typically 24 entries in each event. 1 of the 24 will win, meaning 4% of the 15% of athletes who have qualified for state will be a state champion, or 0.6%.

Of the 24 male athletes who qualified for state against girls, 11 of them (46%) have won a state championship title, or 31% of the total.

4 of the 35 male athletes (11%) have also achieved a top 10 national ranking.

The percentage of male athletes who have been in the top 10 of all track and field athletes in the female division in the entire nation is higher than the percentage of female athletes who have won a state title.

To find the percentage of female athletes who are in the top 10, we can take the 57 indoor and outdoor events ranked on milesplit. com multiplied by 10 (10 athletes in each) then divide by the total number of female athletes in high school track and field - 506,015 (according to nfhs. org).

This number does not take into account the fact that many athletes in the top 10 appear there in multiple events and several of the 57 events are less commonly run. (All 4 male athletes in the top 10 achieved that placement in a main event).

This means less than 0.11 percent of female athletes achieve a top 10 ranking.

"But not all states require hormone therapy!"

It is true that some states do not require males to undergo any sort of testosterone suppression or medical intervention in order to compete against girls.

We can therefore, look to the athletes who have reportedly begun "identifying" as the opposite sex and undergone "medical interventions" prior to puberty or in early middle school as it has been proposed that males who do so are in line with "average female performance."

There are 3 athletes who have reportedly "transitioned" prior to puberty. Based on their feminized appearances and high voices, we can infer this included puberty blockers.

All 3 athletes qualified for the state championship meet, 2 of the athletes were conference champions, and one athletes was not only a state champion and New England champion, but he was ranked in the national top 10.

None of these performances are in line with an "average" athlete. In fact, the national ranking out of three athletes is statistically unlikely to the point of being impossible without an athletic advantage.

"But you just know about the athletes who are good. There could be more you don't hear about because they don't win anything."

When we look at the expected percentages, we can see that about 6 out of 1,000 athletes win state and 1 out of 1,000 are in the top 10 national ranking.

In order to see the 24 males as state champions and 4 males in the top 10, there should be around 4,000 males who have competed in the girls' division in track and field. (3,965 additional athletes, none of whom can have won a state title).

There have been 37 on record.

Numerous state senators and legislators have come forward testifying to the number of "trans"-identifying males participating in their states.

When these legislators testify that there have "only been 2" in the state, or in the case of Ohio, 17 athletes in 8 years, and these numbers include all sports, and when male athletes have been banned from participating in girls' sports in about half of the states in the nation, it is not likely that there are an additional 3,963 male athletes that not only does nobody know about, but who also have not won a single state title.

In regards to the prepubescent "transitioners," there should be an additional 1,000 of them who have not won a state title or achieved a top 10 ranking. This is also highly unlikely, as we've seen multiple prepubescent "transitioners" in other sports also winning national and state championship titles.

Male participation in the female division is not just unfair, it is blatantly so.

These percentages do not reflect the cost to the female athletes behind them. Just 2 male athletes in cross country and track and field in Maine have negatively impacted over 2,000 female athletes.

If each male athlete negatively impacted 500 female on average, that means over 18,500 female high school track and field athletes in the United States have been forced to compete against and have been negatively impacted by these boys.

This includes loss of titles, loss of medals, loss of relay spots, loss of entries in large meets, loss of qualifications for championships, loss of records, loss of privacy, and loss of confidence.

*2 male athletes in Maine negatively impacted over 1,600 girls

3 boys in Washington, over 2,000

SEX BASED GRIP STRENGTH DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN

Sex Differences in Grip Strength From Birth to Age 16: A Meta-Analysis
James L Nuzzo
15 February 2025

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12268

Conclusion

Boys have greater grip strength than girls from birth onward. Prior to age 11, the sex difference in grip strength is small-to-moderate in size, with female grip strength about 90% of male grip strength. At age 11, the sex difference in grip strength decreases because girls reach puberty earlier than boys. Nevertheless, boys still retain a strength advantage at age 11. After male puberty, the size of the sex difference in grip strength increases markedly. At age 16, female grip strength is 65% of male grip strength. With a few exceptions, the observed effect sizes have been largely consistent across time and place. Together, with other findings from the biological and medical literature, the current results suggest a largely biological origin of the sex difference in grip strength in children and adolescents.

DR EMMA HILTON THREAD ON HEIGHT AND HORMONES (INCLUDING SOMETHING ON CAIS

Twitter 13th November 2024

Why male advantage in sport is not a social construct: height. Height is a key difference between males and females. What is nature v nurture? What does that mean for sport?

Bigger skeletons are most obviously driven by longer bone growth. Key bones like those in your thigh (“long bones”) grow from their end to get longer, making you taller.

The site of bone lengthening is called the “epiphyseal plate” or “growth plate”. Here, cells divide/enlarge, making new tissue that pushes the bone ends apart. This tissue calcifies and is replaced by bone, leading to lengthwise growth.

Height is very heritable - tall parents beget tall offspring - and “polygenic” - there are tons of genetic sequences that affect whether you are generally tall, average or short.

Some people carry genetic sequences that make their growth plates very active, meaning they will be generally taller. Others have lazy growth plates, making less new bone and limiting height. Lots of molecular stuff going on at these bone sites!

Height is also affected by environment. You need minerals like calcium to make new bone, so diet is important. Nutritional deficiencies and childhood disease can negatively affect bone growth.

Whether you inherit “tall genes”, “medium genes” or “short genes”, or however your particular combination averages out, is not a social construct. Importantly, both males and females are equally at the mercy of their height genes. When populations can access such things (economic investment, emigration, etc), average heights increase amongst both males and females.

But there is a third key input to height, and that is your sex. That is, when you compare males and females from the same demographic (same ethnicity/genetic pool, same socioeconomics), the males are alway taller. This is not a coincidence.

How does sex affect height? Let’s go back to those bone growth plates. When they are “open”, your bones are growing. This happens throughout childhood, and ramps up massively during puberty.

During puberty, growth plates activity increases under the control of hormones like growth factor hormones and sex hormones. Both estrogens in girls and testosterone in boys stimulate new bone growth. Now here’s the rub. Bone growth (and getting taller) stops when the growth plate “closes” (“epiphyseal closure”), and this is largely driven by only estrogens.

So what’s happening in girls? Well, around 10 yrs old, her body starts pumping out estrogen and she starts her growth spurt. A few years later, that estrogen closes down her growth plates and she stops growing. Females reach adult height around 14-15 yrs old.

https://t.co/enOE44e7pl

And compared to boys? Boys don’t enter puberty until a couple of years after girls. In those couple of years, they are growing in “childhood mode” - this is a couple of extra years that girls don’t get, and underpins a lot of the sex difference in height.

Then their testosterone kicks in, activating their growth plates and up they shoot (just like their female classmates did a couple of years ago). At around 16-18 yrs old, they convert enough of their testosterone to estrogens and their growth plates close, capping their height.

These differential growth trajectories between boys and girls are linked to sex. They are linked to the sex hormones made by the testes and ovaries, the interplay between these sex hormones, and how and when those sex hormones drive pubertal growth.

Even if a girl has inherited “tall genes” and drinks a ton of milk, her sex has an effect on her adult height. Even if a boy has inherited “short genes” and hates dairy, his sex has an effect on his adult height.

The effect of sex on your adult height is an outcome of your reproductive biology and the hormones associated with that reproductive biology. This is not a social construct, it is basic endocrinology.

And that’s what male sports advantage is - the acquisition of a physical trait that aids sports performance because one is male. Being male doesn’t mean you will be tall, it means you will be taller than if you had been female.

A follow up Q. The role of a Y chromosome gene in height is disputed. There is a sex chromosome gene (on both Xs and Ys) called SHOX, that is undeniably involved in height, in the sense that mutations cause bone growth disorders and short stature conditions. The possession of only one working copy has been proposed to underpin short stature in Turner syndrome.

However, typical height patterns in various DSDs can be explained by the hormonal interactions I describe above.

For example, Klinefelter males are unusually tall and have 3 SHOX copies. However, they also usually have low T, which delays puberty (longer childhood growth window) and delays the accumulation of sufficient estrogens to cap growth. Klinefelter males continue to grow long after other males have stopped (perhaps 20 yrs old).

In CAIS/Swyer, there is no T signalling and (usually) an absence of normally-timed estrogen supplementation. This delays puberty and lengthens the childhood growth window. Timing of diagnosis and estrogen supplementation will usually occur later than female growth is capped. So they are taller than female peers.

It's not a closed case, but I'm increasingly persuaded that hormonal milieu has sufficient explanatory power in most cases. The strongest counter is XX males, who are typically shorter than healthy males, but with the same T profile as Klinefelter males, so why aren't they also unusually tall?

EVEN AFTER 5 YEARS MUSCLE STRENGTH IN MALE ATHLETES ON HORMONE TREATMENT REMAINS UNCHANGED

Longitudinal changes in regional fat and muscle composition and cardiometabolic biomarkers over 5 years of hormone therapy in transgender individuals

Tommy R. Lundberg, Andrea Tryfonos, Lisa M.J. Eriksson, Helene Rundqvist, Eric Rullman, Mats Holmberg, Salwan Maqdasy, Jennifer Linge, Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard, Stefan Arver, Daniel P. Andersson, Anna Wiik, Thomas Gustafsson

Published 27 November 2024

Results

Skeletal muscle size increased in TM (21% after 6 years) and decreased in TW (7% after 5 years). Muscle strength increased 18% after 6 years in TM (p = 0.003) but was statistically unchanged in TW. Muscle fat infiltration changed (p < 0.05) almost completely toward the affirmed sex phenotype after 1 year of therapy in both TM and TW. The most notable changes in fat volume distribution were that TW increased total adiposity but decreased visceral fat volume, whereas TM showed increased visceral fat (70%) and liver fat but relatively stable total adipose tissue levels. Although arterial stiffness and blood pressure did not change, there was a significant increase in triglyceride and LDL cholesterol levels and a decrease in HDL levels in TM after 6 years.

Conclusion

These unique longitudinal data underscore the importance of continued clinical monitoring of the long-term health effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy in both TW and, perhaps especially, TM.

ON PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN

Another study from Gregory Brown and team regarding children. They have now covered running, swimming and now other track events.

Sex-based differences in shot put, javelin throw, and long jump in 8-and-under and 9–10-year-old athletes

Gregory A Brown, Brandon S Shaw & Ina Shaw

Published 14 December 2024

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsc.12241

Highlights

Males in the 8-and-under age group outperformed females of the same ages by 19.3% in shot put, 32.6% in javelin throw, and 4.7% in long jump.

Males in the 9–10-year-old age group outperformed females of the same ages by 6.5% in shot put, 23.5% in javelin throw, and 3.9% in long jump.

The average differences between the first through fourth place finishers within males and within females were smaller than the sex-based differences between males and females in all but 9–10-year-old shot put.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, although some have stated that the prepubertal sex-based differences in athletic performance are immaterial or absent, the present data indicate that in the 8-and-under group and 9–10-year-old age group, males achieved greater distances in shot put, javelin throw, and long jump. Although some females in these age groups threw or jumped farther than some males, the average distances for shot put, javelin throw, and long jump for males were farther than for females; the best performing males threw and jumped farther than the best performing females and the average differences between the sexes were larger than within sex differences for the top 4 finalists (i.e., those in closest competition for a medal) for all events and ages except shot put in the 9–10-year old age group. As throwing and jumping are key components of many sports, these sex-based differences in shot put, javelin throw, and long jump between males and females ages 10-and-under should be considered when sport governing bodies and policy makers consider the issue of sex-segregated sporting categories.

ON PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN

Sex-based differences in swimming performance in 10-years-old-and-under athletes in short course national competition

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12237

Gregory A Brown, Brandon S Shaw & Ina Shaw

Published 7th December 2024

Conclusion

The present data indicates that prepubertal males swim 1.16%–2.63% significantly faster than females in the 50 yd (45.7), 100 yd (91.4), and 200 yd (182.9 m) freestyle, 100 yd backstroke, 50 yd breaststroke, 100 yd butterfly, and 100 and 200 yd IM, but not in the 500 yd (457.2 m) freestyle, 50 yd butterfly, 100 yd breaststroke, or 50 yd backstroke (although the differences in the 50 yd backstroke approached significance). The present data do not explain why there are sex-based differences in some, but not all, of these events. Based on the present and previous data indicating that prepubertal males swim faster than prepubertal females in most events, there seems to be little justification to eliminate sex segregated competition in youth swimming.

Furthermore, this study serves as a valuable contribution to our comprehension of the intricate interplay between sex differences and swimming performance in prepubertal children. Although further research is imperative to refine and expand upon our current understanding, the findings presented here underscore the significance of considering sex-specific factors in the assessment of swimming performance in prepubertal children. Acknowledging and investigating these differences not only advances our knowledge in sports science but also holds potential implications for training strategies tailored to individual needs. As we delve deeper into this realm, the multifaceted nature of sex-related influences on swimming performance in prepubertal children becomes increasingly apparent, allowing for more targeted and effective approaches in the pursuit of athletic safety, inclusion, and excellence.

Point made by author on twitter:

"In 8 out of 12 events boys swam significantly faster than girls and there were no events where girls were significantly faster. More evidence that sex matters in sports!"

https://x.com/BrowngaGreg/status/1865528288644382872

This is one of the main points:

Males were 1.16%–2.63% faster (p < 0.05; effect sizes 0.376–0.596) than females in the 50 yards (yd; 45.7 m), 100 yd (91.4 m), and 200 yd (182.9 m) freestyle, 100 yd backstroke, 50 yd breaststroke, 100 yd butterfly, and 100 and 200 yd IM. There were no significant sex-based differences in the 500 yd (457.2 m) freestyle, 50 yd backstroke, 100 yd breaststroke, or 50 yd butterfly. The individual fastest time for a female was faster than for a male in the 50, 100, and 500 yd freestyle, 50 and 100 yd backstroke, 50 and 100 yd butterfly, and 100 yd IM.

Although in eight out of 12 events the individual fastest times were from females, in eight out of 12 events the average male times were significantly faster.