Trans women sports statistics are generated from a tiny number of individuals

[IJustHadToNameChange]

Check this 'groundbreaking' research by a trans woman, scientist and athlete

This research is being done by a transgender woman taking testosterone blockers who (surprise surprise) has found that her times have slowed now she's taken hormones for some years.

This research does not include athletes who do not take hormones or hormone blockers.

To understand the differences between men and women, and relate that to sport, we need to look at far, far more than testosterone levels.

For example, take hand grip strength - a study done shows that there are massive differences between men and women, and even the strongest fittest female athlete is unlikely to reach the 25th percentile level for ordinary, unfit, average male.

here is an abstract referring to skeletal size - there are literally thousands of articles like this online, showing that men and women of comparable ages, sizes, fitness levels etc etc have very different strengths, lung capacity, muscle mass; whatever you want to compare someone has done it and every single time the male body, because (presumably) of the effect of having 18+ years of testosterone influence, comes out on top.

No-one would think it ok for a woman to openly take testosterone for 10 years, then stop and enter the olympic games - she'd be called a cheat.

I don't accept that any male-born person should ever enter a women only event, no matter how old, unfit, surgery-altered or hormonally influenced their body is.

Any indication in the "research" as to why women who identify as men don't manage to attain elite standards in men's sports?

Is it just laziness or lack of merit on their part?

I know.

It's as if only the MtF trans actually matter.

I believe peak flow (lung capacity - puff) differs between the sexes around puberty and is vastly different by your 30s.

If the argument is that a man who identifies as a woman and competes against women does NOT have an advantage then let him continue to compete against men.

If the argument is that he has an advantage over women, but now has a disadvantage against men he should still compete against men or start a trans league. It was his choice to make the change so he should deal with the consequences. Why should women pay the price?

Well that first line was unclear. I meant what motive was there for insisting on competing against women if he didn't have an advantage. (we all know really that it's about being able to win easily)

Look at the amount of engineering that goes into sports clothing and equipment eg trainers. Nike have huge laboratories full of scientists, engineers and product designers all working with state of the art equipment to try and squeeze even the smallest margins of advantage.

But the massive physical differences between men and women are basically just negligible. Righto.

Ah, Harper, yes, upon whose research the IOC based their decision of 10 nmol/L of testosterone - for all athletes and sports even though the study was done on a handful of endurance athletes, most of which were amateurs.

The Harper who in response to the Brazilian man beating records in volleyball in the women's division (after not even being first division in the men's in Netherlands) said "yes, they retain advantages in strength based sports. Maybe we can limit it to one trans woman per team". I don't know if I still have the article bookmarked somewhere, but this is essentially what 'she' wrote.

"If the argument is that he has an advantage over women, but now has a disadvantage against men he should still compete against men or start a trans league. It was his choice to make the change so he should deal with the consequences. Why should women pay the price?"

This. The answer is because they matter more. Some of the stuff the mothers of the transgirls in the US say about their now daughters. "She worked so hard, she deserves it".

Quite, LemonJello. Maybe Nike could make some nice pink trainers that give me the explosive speed of someone who has longer limbs, a differently tilted pelvis, lower fat to muscle ratio and more efficient use of muscle mass?

On the one hand we have peer reviewed research - I checked, the European Journal of Endocrinology is peer reviewed. On the other hand we have a bunch of MNers expressing their opinions.

On the one hand we have peer reviewed research - I checked, the European Journal of Endocrinology is peer reviewed.
The Lancet is peer reviewed and still published Andrew Wakefield's discredited autism/MMR nonsense.
Transwomen in sports can't compete with women because of the Obelix factor.

On the other hand we have a bunch of MNers expressing their opinions

Roughly translated as "people seeing the difference between men and women".

Some facts are just obvious, and no "peer reviewed" literature based on a small, hand-picked few examples is going to convince any reasonable person that, on average, men are bigger, faster, stronger (and thus more likely to win at pretty much any sport) than women.

To imply that thinking otherwise is the "opinion" of a few is extraordinary.

You can't level the playing field.