Two boys take 1st and 2nd place in Connecticut girls' 100m sprint

[OrchidInTheSun]

twitter.com/GameTimeCT/status/1003739370736816129

Isn't that great? Terry has got the fastest ever meet time for a girl! Poor Bridget is now third.

I wonder if Terry and Andraya will now get university scholarships based on their poor track performances when compared to their male peers?

Is that saying that if this boy was born female, they may have won, therefore the advantage they have isn't important?

That's to SuitedandBooted link

rooted in the widely-held beliefs about fairness and the biological advantages associated with being male. Such beliefs are over-simplistic

And yet Science shows otherwise. Such beliefs are not over simplistic, they are objectively measurable. Testable, measurable, the lot.

Science is not a belief based system. Its objective.

If anyone is wondering why TRAs come on here with their ‘science facts’ and a few of us Will Not Let It Lie - even though we know they are GFs - it’s this. Science is objective. Science is not belief based. Science blows TRA claims out of the water.

To which the obvious response is "But they weren't"

Or are we legislating for "ifs" now.

"If I was a bit brighter, I would have won a Nobel Prize, (so give it to me!)" sort of thing?

I'm responding to BaroqueHavoc responding to me! .

Pretty much. I know I do often get rather Yorkshire terrier when it comes to TRAs and their Bad Science, but I’m basically Gandalf on that bridge yelling ‘you shall not pass!’ At the buggers.

Someone has to, and I’m not brave enough to don a mankini ...

CongrTulations Bridget the woman who won the race 🥇

There seems to be a belief that if you say the same thing over and over again, it becomes true.

I'm really disappointed by Loughborough. It's my understanding that it's the premier sports university so the fact that they are stating patent untruths (as well as co-opting poor intersex people) is profoundly depressing

Loughborough seem to have decided on the answer before they’ve even researched the question.

No it wouldn't solve any of it. The vast majority of trans women do not see themselves as men. Not any type of man.

What on earth does 'how trans women see themselves' have to do with their eligibility to participate in women's sports? (And trans girls in girls'). Presumably if you think it's relevant, either you think that the significant differences in athletic performance between the sexes is due to something in the brain rather than the body or logically you'd have to accept that 'trans disabled' athletes would be eligible for the Paralympics in whatever ability category they saw themselves as being. (Or you think the feelings and aspirations of males are more important than those of females).

Loughborough seem to have decided on the answer before they’ve even researched the question

That's how it reads to me. I didn't do a Science-based PhD, but I always imagined you would set yourself/be set a "question" , look for all the evidence, and form an answer.

Loughborough seem to be saying;

"This is what we think. Back it up"

I didn't do a Science-based PhD, but I always imagined you would set yourself/be set a "question" , look for all the evidence, and form an answer.

Not quite. Question/initial evidence gathering may be the first stage, but you don't then 'form an answer' - you should propose a hypothesis and the next stage should be to design experiments to test that hypothesis. And by 'test', this does not mean design experiments which would be expected to confirm the hypothesis - on the contrary, you should be trying to design experiments which are capable of disproving it.

(The whole process may well be more than the scope of one PhD project of course.)

Follow the money!
I have no doubt that Loughborough has received funding for these "posts". Now I wonder who would be interested in funding
such a biased approach to the men's rights ?
Who believes that widely-held beliefs about fairness and the biological advantages associated with being male.... are over-simplistic, legitimise discrimination, and hinder the sports participation of transgender (intersex, trans, non-binary) individuals

Seriously concerned about Loughborough - yes is leading sports uni in country .... if they are going this route - HELP!!!

What errol said.

You should be using a null hypothesis. So ‘there is no difference in colon cancer rates between my wild type and my mutant mice.’

It’s (mainly, there are specific tones you need to) really bad science to do scattergun ‘data mining’ type stuff. If you throw enough stuff at the wall, something will stick, and that’s a recipe for false positives.

Just as an aside;

How would these PhD's be funded, from an outside source, ie company/group?

There’s an email address on their webpage in that link for the postgraduate studies coordinator. No funding body seems to be listed on the web page (only had a quick poke.)
It would be enlightening to see who is funding them.

That's really interesting Errol & Babel Thank you.

So would you say that LB's initial introduction (posted above) for the required areas of study follows the null hypothesis model?

It would be enlightening to see who is funding them.

Yes, it would.

I wouldnt count them as science based PhDs - they seem to be more sociology based tbh.

Loughborough' Athena Swan project to advance women in STEM has been coopted by trans.

So more sociology than science.

So would you say that LB's initial introduction (posted above) for the required areas of study follows the null hypothesis model? To me, it seems to be inviting a certain type of study and outcome - and it's not keep sport sex segregated!

I can't get through the Financial Statements to find out who is behind the endowments and funding grants.

No it doesn’t follow a null hypothesis model. It reads as an invite to produce a monologue that will support unisex sport

The concise statement just says X million in endowmentsxetc. Not where the money comes from.