If research finds no significant differences for sport for male & female, where will that lead?

[CrazyToast]

I read today that Loughborough has recruited 5 PhD students to research the gender binary in sport. Could be fine, you may think. But look at the advert.

"One of the most influential, powerful and visible institutions upholding the gender binary is sport – where participation is predominantly segregated by biological sex, rooted in the widely-held beliefs about fairness and the biological advantages associated with being male. Such beliefs are over-simplistic, legitimise discrimination, and hinder the sports participation of transgender (intersex, trans, non-binary) individuals. With the rapidly growing societal visibility of transgender people, there is an unprecedented need to address areas where discrimination may arise."

Combining the above statement with other research which suggests 'most policies unfairly alienate transgender competitors based mainly on an unsubstantiated assumption that transgender females possess an unfair sporting advantage.'

NB this is Bethany Jones who recently said that women could just try harder in sports if they didn't want to be beaten by men

There is now a push against testosterone testing in women's sports for trans women, and also to scrap sex categories in sport altogether.

If this happens, then it is essentially saying there is no relevant physical difference between males and females. What could this mean for wider life outside of sport?

Could sport be paving the way to undermining sex-based differences in the same way as self -ID?

What if the research does find that there are no differences? What are we to make of that?

www.researchgate.net/profile/Bethany_Jones5

It is bizarre that Loughborough - know as the university for top student athletes - is supporting this work taking place.

It's particularly bizarre that the Sports and Exercise people are involved, because one would have thought the mental gymnastics involved in doing this sort of "research" would either make them personally angry or would at least make them worry about reputational risk.

This is a project where the outcome has been determined before the study has taken place. It's methodologically ridiculous.

I often wondered how scientists of the past could have believed ideologically-driven nonsense that seems completely absurd today. These so-called scientific findings were used to prop up societal structures - the idea that higher education damaged a woman's fertility, for instance. But if that was what they wanted to conclude, that is what they found.

The mistake was mine for thinking that these misuses of science were confined to the past.

The advert can't even distinguish between gender and sex FFS - using sex-segregated sporting events to talk about a 'gender binary'. There is no reason to divide sports based on whether someone prefers the pink or blue set of gender stereotypes. None at all. You divide by biological sex, or you make the case for no division at all - which I of course disagree with because it would mean the end of women's sporting achievement, but it at least has internal consistency as a standpoint.

This is a project where the outcome has been determined before the study has taken place. It's methodologically ridiculous.

Social "science", innit?

To answer the op, perhaps where it will lead is to questions about the validity of academia. This kind of research is what gives Universities a bad name.

Five PhD students? Jeez. And they'll be doing what, exactly? How much money would we be talking for this? I know that Prof came across badly on the radio, but what she lacks in academic rigour and ability she makes up for in persuasive powers.

Imagine being employed to research shit. Their days will be busier than the police still searching for Maddy McCann.

@LaundryLaundryLaundry

I think that PhD students receive a "stipend" grant of £14K to £25K.
Your comment about persuasive powers is bang on the money. If you study psychology or philosophy, then you can pretty much make anything up, as the group in the US churning out spoof thesis have proved, because there is no "hard" science involved.
Imagine if you were doing an Astrophysics PhD, and your thesis was based around the theory that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and the moon really was made of green cheese, then that thesis would be laughed at and rightly dismissed.
If on the other hand you study philosophy, then you could base a thesis on something quite bizarre, such as "The human male has no physical advantages when competing in sports", and some people would take it seriously.
I have tried contacting the sporting bodies about this, and nobody wants to talk about it.
I find the whole situation very disturbing, and ultimately it could destroy women's sport.

If "research" finds this, it's not research but fantasy.

See this thread on twitter on this topic:

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1072970613172682752

The problem seems to be that sports organisations are afraid of the Equality Act 2010 which has replaced the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. Back in 2004, the FA recognised that letting biological men compete against women would be unfair and dangerous. They are now afraid to say this.

This makes me so, so angry and sad. Changes in equalities legislation actively working against women.

I think that PhD students receive a "stipend" grant of £14K to £25K

If you're getting anything even remotely close to £25K it's funded by a company and the student is basically an employee. Research council stipends outside London are £14777 at the moment: I'd be surprised if many people are getting more than that. University studentships are usually paid at the same level.

You can get a few bob by doing some tutoring, demonstrating and other hourly paid work, but you're usually limited to a couple of hundred hours a year at most and it pays about fifteen quid an hour, so you might make another three grand. Riches, it isn't.

Source: did funded PhD recently.