That's the problem. The "respectful debate" ultimately boils down to "are TW men?" so it's impossible to have that debate with you as you see it as a personal attack when someone, quite reasonably, says "TW are men".

Gosh yes, you are absolutely right 😔

OP Posted:

Ok, but Trans-women are Stronger. That ain't Fair!

There is no consistent biological advantage for trans women in elite sport. Oestrogen therapy significantly reduces muscle mass, strength and performance over time. Regulations often require minimum hormone levels and transition periods before competing.

OP It think you are really behind the times.

LONG TERM STUDY ON ADVANTAGES BY MALE ATHLETES ON OESTROGEN THERAPY

The Brazilian study.

bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/09/01/bjsports-2021-105400.info

Cardiopulmonary capacity and muscle strength in transgender women on long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy: a cross-sectional study

Leonardo Azevedo Mobilia Alvares, Marcelo Rodrigues Santos, Francis Ribeiro Souza, Lívia Marcela Santos, Berenice Bilharinho de Mendonça, Elaine Maria Frade Costa, Maria Janieire Nazaré Nunes Alves, Sorahia Domenice

Conclusion

In this small cohort of non-athlete TW, who were previously exposed to male pubertal development and underwent long-term oestrogen therapy, we identified higher grip strength and VO2 peak levels than in non-athlete CW, but these same parameters were lower compared with non-athlete CM.

These findings add new insights to the sparse information available on a highly controversial topic about the participation of TW in physical activities. Future studies involving transgender athletes that account for and quantify variable exposure times to pubertal development and assess muscle cell metabolism are needed to elucidate the effects of long-term GAHT on TW sports performance.

And from Ross Tucker on this study

From Ross Tucker on this study above:

Over a decade (14.4 yrs average) of T-suppression, and TW have VO2max 20% higher, grip strength 19% higher & skeletal mass 40% than women. More evidence that male biology persists long after T is removed. Another piece of the same puzzle, albeit from a cross-sectional study.

The cross-sectional bit is important - the study hasn't (like over a dozen others) tracked people from Day zero onwards, so the differences are a 'snapshot' rather than a 'movie', if that makes sense? Means you don't know how those TW began, 14.4 yrs earlier, but the finding of quite large differences compared to women (20% or more) is striking, because a) they either began as typically representative of males, and lost some, but retained significant advantages vs women, or b) they began well below men, and lost hardly any advantages. In either case, the end point, over a decade later, is biological differences compared to women that will create performance implications. Of interest, the mass retention and VO2max advantage mean that relative VO2max (ml/kg/min) ends up similar, which means in some sports (weight-determined) the performance implication may differ - sometimes very large, sometimes smaller, as in some categories within endurance sports.

But zero? Unlikely, because cardio function, FFM & strength are greater. Important paper, showing striking biological 'persistence' 14 yrs on.
Two further thoughts on the study. First, the TW vs women differences in muscle mass and strength remain large (20%) after more than a decade of T suppression. One year vs ten, biology "persists". Second, add training to the mix and TW and women would obviously get stronger.

You could TRY to argue that women would get stronger relatively more than TW (you'd have a job on your hands to explain why this would be, but anyway). More likely is that the differences - TW vs women - would persist or even increase with the addition of training. What this study confirms is that non-trained TW retain biological differences with performance implications after 14 years of T suppression. You'd have to believe that W could make up these gaps with training to believe in fairness in sport. That is, trained W = non-trained TW = fair!

Oooo nice

So out of respect I did skip through and read the last paragraph. No love your fine. You can say what you want here and won’t be deleted. This is an open forum.

I agree with you OP and reading FWR - which I do, because I believe in being aware of all viewpoints - has only made me more supportive of trans inclusion. Unfortunately you are wasting your breath here though, as much as people say they want to hear from people who disagree and have a respectful debate, they don’t - you just end up being ridiculed or accused of being a man.

Brave? What do you think is going to happen to the OP?

It's honestly hilarious how TRAs think the reason that we aren't fawning over the special ones is because we haven't understood (whether through stupidity or ignorance). We have all heard you loud and clear. We understand and we disagree.

Ok, but Trans-women are Stronger. That ain't Fair!

There is no consistent biological advantage for trans women in elite sport. Oestrogen therapy significantly reduces muscle mass, strength and performance over time. Regulations often require minimum hormone levels and transition periods before competing.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/59312313

Did you even read the first link you posted? It disagrees with your statement.

Conclusion

In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy.

This is Harper's study.

It also agrees with this study:

From Dr Hilton and T Lundberg. This contains great information and quantifies some of the differences. You will find this study is very well referenced by many who use the findings to explain male pubertal advantage.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage

Abstract: Males enjoy physical performance advantages over females within competitive sport. The sex-based segregation into male and female sporting categories does not account for transgender persons who experience incongruence between their biological sex and their experienced gender identity. Accordingly, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) determined criteria by which a transgender woman may be eligible to compete in the female category, requiring total serum testosterone levels to be suppressed below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to and during competition. Whether this regulation removes the male performance advantage has not been scrutinized. Here, we review how differences in biological characteristics between biological males and females affect sporting performance and assess whether evidence exists to support the assumption that testosterone suppression in transgender women removes the male performance advantage and thus delivers fair and safe competition. We report that the performance gap between males and females becomes significant at puberty and often amounts to 10–50% depending on sport. The performance gap is more pronounced in sporting activities relying on muscle mass and explosive strength, particularly in the upper body. Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations should consider this evidence when reassessing current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

Here is another:

The USAF study. Again, one that people will often find referred to.

bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/06/bjsports-2020-102329

Timothy A Roberts, Joshua Smalley, Dale Ahrendt

Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators
Summary The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.

It is interesting reading as it also leaves the suggestion that even after 3 years advantage still exists.

I feel like I just failed the big boss level 😬

Back to the button mashing cauldron stirring…

I’m sorry OP, I stopped half way down. Couldn’t make it to the end. Respectfully you are completely deluded.

And there is of course the protest outside the EHRC by the 'Pissed off Trannies' who poured bottles of piss over themselves. I can't attach a photo (too big) but a quick google will show you (you might want some eye bleach).

See many actual women pouring piss over themselves? Or holding up posters expressing a similar sentiment towards trans people?

No. Because we're not the extremists.

I'm sorry but this beetle does not do dark chocolate.

<adds additional 67 stirs to anti clockwise cauldron stirs for the egregious crime of not knowing such vitally important information.>

They're in Women's Sports! I read it on teh internets!

There are only a small number of openly trans athletes competing at a professional level in the world, and none are dominating their fields.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/61346517
https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/sport/athletics/65051900

You point is irrelevant. It doesn't matter 'how many' are competing and it certainly doesn't matter whether they are 'dominating' or not.

It is certainly about fairness, but it is about safety. Even ONE male playing can cause significant injuries to other competitors.... or did you forget that?

https://www.kuam.com/story/46261367/tiyan-rugby-coach-calls-for-ban-on-transgender-players-after-injuries-at-weekend-match

Guam. One player injures three female players in just one game. There are numerous stories like this, I am very happy to link more.

One male player can cause significant injuries and significant harm to many players.

here is one analysis:

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

hecheated also have done this other analysis:

"Men and boys have participated in over 8,731 women's competitions.

They have placed 1st at least 2,903 times and top three at least 4,747 times.

They have stolen at least $1,600,087 in prizes and 446 awards...."

Even if this is an underestimation, if starts to show the sustained harm that this inclusion has had. It is indicative, of course, this information has not been verified as far as I can see, And it includes boys as well as adults and it includes any level of sport.

I have more examples that I can post if anyone is interested...

TLDR:

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

And in Guam just one male player injured 3 female players IN ONE GAME.

But sure.... just a few....

Oh and some more examples of trans extremism (or at the very least violent and unpleasant behaviour)

Some notes for those who haven't seen these images before -

The cartoon is a collage of many of the violent actions taken publicly by TRA's

The 'only good terf is a dead terf' is only one of multiple identical signs displayed at the recent protests against the Supreme Court judgement. There were others, expressing similar sentiment.

The ones of a bloke holding a knife and a baseball is big Beth, who the leader of the Scottish Lib Dems 'did it all for' in regards to the GRR Bill.

The infamous 'decapitate terfs' sign. The women standing in front of it smirking includes the Scottish Government's Minister for Equalities.

I am really sorry that this is not being taken seriously - I will answer each point in turn:

• 1 - No - wrong
• 2 - No - wrong
• 3 - No - wrong
• 4 - No - wrong
• 5 - No - wrong
• 6 - No - wrong
• 7 - No - wrong
• 8 - No - wrong
• 9 - No - wrong
• 10 - No - wrong
• 11 - No - wrong

Hope that helps - any other thoughts you wish to share, I am always available for a detailed critique...

Equal treatment, yes, no problem.

No discrimination in employment, great.

Preferential treatment, such as accessing facilities and services set up for the opposite sex, no.

Also IF no transwomen claimed to be biologically female, on what grounds would they be claiming access to women's spaces and sports?

Male 'entitlement to things that don't belong to them' grounds?

The OP knew that making an opening post with phrases like *Trans People are extremist! That's wot I done heard! *would be so sure to win everyone over to his point of view that there was no need to stick around silly!

Plopped and pissed off

💩💩💩

I’m gonna start calling these types of threads a PAPO

posted and pissed off…

There aren't 'types' of women, how incredibly offensive. Being a black woman doesn't make you a 'type' of woman. You're either a woman or you're not, and if you were born male then you're not.

'Woman' is more than just a 'social' role, how offensive again - it is also a biological sex. Woman = Adult female human being - I done read it in teh dicktionary.

Now you know what a woman is and isn't, hopefully you'll be able to work out what toilet to use. I mean any fule should know - but you sadly seem to lack any critical thinking skills.

Will a caramel wafer do? It’s dark chocolate…

the OP doesn't come across as entirely well does he? and how very surprising that he hasn't re-engaged with the thread. I'm all astonishment.

If his thread was some kind of exercise in winning hearts and minds, I've got to wonder how he thinks it went

No trans woman claims to be biologically female

Oh dear OP, must try harder. Let me introduce you to TIM Katy Montgomerie:

https://bsky.app/profile/katymontgomerie.com

This has to be the most bonkers OP I've seen in a while although it is interesting how some people's minds work.
I've not clicked through all the 'citations' but the ones I have say the exact opposite of what he's claiming.
For example, on puberty blockers, he puts:
They are fully reversible and shown to reduce the risk of suicide in young people with persistent gender dysphoria.
Then follows it up with a link to https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/ which literally states that there is not enough evidence on their clinical safety and effectiveness.
If you click on the BMJ link, it is literally titled: Puberty blockers: No evidence that a ban has led to “surge” in suicides, finds review.
The citations provided literally say the opposite of what is being claimed in the OP.
I mean presumably he must have at least looked at them in order to write the post? Why pick stuff that disproves his point? I can only assume he hasn't read them and assumes we'll be as lazy. Absolutely batshit.
*Edited to say I've used the word literally too many times here, but that is what the links actually show. Unhinged.