Sharron Davies

[EugeneWrayburn]

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/47428951

@WineCheeseSleep I would imagine that PL is referring to the work of Joanna Harper, a transwoman who advises and researches in this area.

www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/scientist-racing-discover-how-gender-transitions-alter-athletic-performance-including

The most significant research, in terms of how it's been used, is the study of 8 transwomen long distance runners. That apparently showed no advantage of women of the same age. There is a lot to criticise in that report. The report was I think used by the IOC to come to its conclusions about testosterone and qualifying periods. Dr Harper is often on panels that look into this.

The fact that the 'get out' for the argument that transwomen have been through a male puberty and therefore have all the advantages of that, is that in the future people will transition before puberty so that 'will no longer be a problem', is fucking abhorrent.

It's absolutely sick. And it really exposes the agenda.

Lupron is anti-cancer drug, for fucks sake. It affects bone density. Kids like Jazz Jennings spend a disproportionate amount of time in hospitals.

Ingesting cancer drugs, cutting off healthy body parts, removing a uterus, and being on medication for the rest of your life, is not going to produce an elite athlete. That's number one.

Number two, encouraging children to mutilate themselves in order to compete at sport is fucking sick.

It's akin to telling kids that they can cut a leg off and enter the Paralympics.

Dear fucking God. I'm not sure how much more hellish this can get.

And what science would that be?

Datun, yes.

This one really needs to be pressed. I've said on another thread that what is being suggested is deliberately stunting a child's development to ensure they don't develop to their full potential. That's not sporting for a start, and it's emphatically not remotely ethical.

Sharron Davies is a shero

Sharron Davies MBE
@sharrond62
Replying to @DoolanPd
Oh dear I think so. But many many elite female & male athletes feel the same way & a few of us decided we’d take the abuse because we don’t want a generation of young female athletes to miss out or give up all together #transgenderdebate

On Twitter Paris Lees is saying the science is all on their side, does anyone know about this? I've googled but can't see much that's conclusive either way. That wouldn't really be relevant though in cases of self-ID
Agree with you winecheesesleep. The study that is often quoted as showing no advantage for trans athletes is by Joanna Harper (who is trans herself) but had a sample size of 8. The evidence is more in favour of an advantage though. Fondofbeetles has done a amazing blog on this. So clear and well written:

fondofbeetles.wordpress.com/2018/10/01/harder-better-faster-stronger-why-we-must-protect-female-sports/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Mrsjasmin, I agree, it was weird to hear such an emotional (and manipulative) response read to sd. She also accused her directly of transphobia. Sd responded really well. But again I think it will help Sharon's side, not rk's. Everyone at home heard Sharon sounding sensible fair and not hateful at all, then heard her called a transphobe by email. They will see that for what it is.

On the science - in another thread about sport on radio 5 earlier today there was a link to a Prof of sport science who spoke (I didn't hear but sound like he put forward the physiological differences unequivocally). His twitter is @sportprofbrewer and it looks like he is getting in touch with fpfw.

There is also blogs on medium by Dr antonia Lee (an elite coach but a pseudonym) who talks about the differences.

Can I just point out what an awkward, odd segment it was? Two guests, both on poor quality video link, one after the other, the only interaction was with the interviewer, not with each other, and Derbyshire reading that strange emotion laden email to SD as though it merited an answer. Hugely incompetent broadcasting for a professional news programme, tbh.

I am no scientist, but the Harper Study:

www.sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabstracts/ID-1699.pdf

Is thinner than grapheme and raises so many questions. Athletes who transitioned improved but 'not as much as they would have done.'

Other athletes were slower aged 39 then when they were 27.

Calling any Biology teachers: What would you make of that as coursework?

Sharron has tweeted that she would've liked to be able to reply to the assertions that came after her segment.

The fact that the 'get out' for the argument that transwomen have been through a male puberty and therefore have all the advantages of that, is that in the future people will transition before puberty so that 'will no longer be a problem', is fucking abhorrent.

It's absolutely sick. And it really exposes the agenda.

Every tra point relies on the medication of children.

Ensuring that children don't go through puberty is very important to many tra.

Massive kudos to Sharron for standing up.

I've just seen her reply to R Mck about R Mck's assertion that endogenous testosterone doesn't affect performance. I am blocked by Mckinnon so had to go incognito to see their tweet but they link to a paper by endocrinologists who supposedly prove this is the case. Can anyone make head or tail of it?

This is the tweet/thread twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1099798725126320129

and this is the first paper it links to: - www.dropbox.com/s/somh3lho3qq8c9r/Healy_et_al-2014-Clinical_Endocrinology.pdf?dl=0

It's weird because although in the summary of the results, it does mention overlapping testosterone levels in female and male athletes, in the main body of the results, it also says this: -

"There were significant difference between men and women for 19 of the 24 measured variables. Many of these differences were to be expected, for example, testosterone and ‘% body fat’, but on the other hand, for a number of variables such as free thyroid hormones (fT3 & fT4), the differences were not expected yet highly significant statistically despite being small in magnitude.

Does this not suggest that although there are overlaps at the upper/lower end of female/male testosterone scores, the differences are statistically significant?

Is Rachel applying learned tactics from Rachel's thesis?

Also, isn't Rachel wilfully missing the point by focusing soley on testosterone levels? Can anyone who's not blocked by Rachel ask Rachel to provide evidence that males are not positively affected by having gone through a male puberty?

God sorry that was so long and waffly.

I find the paper's conclusions very interesting:
Through taking post-competition blood samples from a large population of elite athletes, we have shown significant differences in most of the hormone levels between the sexes and between the sporting categories. We have shown that despite differences in mean testosterone level between genders, there is complete overlap of the range of concentrations seen. This shows that the recent decision of the IOC and IAAF to limit participation in elite events to women with a ‘normal’ serum testosterone is unsustainable. We have also shown that the approximate 10-kg deficit in LBM seen in elite female athletes most likely accounts for differences in performance seen between the sexes rather than the hypothesis put forward by the IOC/IAAF that it is due to testosterone. The differences in demographic and hormonal profiles seen between sports imply that in addition to specific physical attributes (e.g. height and basket-ball), there may be specific hormonal profiles that favour individuals excelling in a particular sport.

I would interpret this as saying that:
Although there are significant differences between testosterone averages in males and females, these are not sufficient to indicate that testosterone is the sole determiner of performance.

It is more likely that other factors are at play in determining why there is a difference in performance between the sexes.

I would also add that while there is significant overlap between the sexes, the female results are very much confined to the lower end of the scale (I didn't see that an outlier test had been performed) whereas the male ones are much more widespread.

"It is more likely that other factors are at play in determining why there is a difference in performance between the sexes."

Men have higher bone density, larger muscle mass, leaner bodies, stronger tendons and sinews, larger hearts and lungs, better cardiovascular system, higher red blood cell count leading to more oxygen in the blood, narrower pelvises, larger hands and feet.
All of the above do not simply go AWOL when "T" levels are reduced. I took part in cycle racing with "T" levels lower than most women, it didn't stop me winning from time to time.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone peak trans so quickly

BBC have done another piece with a transwoman saying they have no advantage

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/47438175

Nod to balance at end

Note this transwoman gives the usual sexist idea that a weakened man is the same as a woman

Gross misogyny

Thank you Sharron.

Everyone has probably noticed this already, but Sharon Davies, as well as going out there and standing up for athletes, really, really knows and understands what she is talking about. I am blown away

(and I got a like on twitter from Dame Kelly Holmes )

Everyone has probably noticed this already, but Sharon Davies, as well as going out there and standing up for athletes, really, really knows and understands what she is talking about. I am blown away

She does. She gets it.

And creeps on McKinnons twitter are saying things like 'Sharron has no idea what she's buying in to'. I'm not sure if it's meant to sound menacing, but it does.

I don't think they will gaslight her into backtracking. Once you see it, it doesn't go away.

I'm pretty sure Sharron knows she's buying into supporting the rights of girls and women.

It must take mental toughness to be a real champion in sports. These women have, I'm sure, had to put up with all sorts of misogynistic shit all their lives.

Thank you Sharron.(I have a feeling Sharron, or friends of Sharron, are here already. )

Sharron, I grew up with seeing your incredible sporting ability (along with the Green Cross Code man and stripy polo necks).

I am so impressed with the calm and rational approach you've taken today with so much media attention on you. There have been others before you who have dipped their toe in the (boiling) hot water and jumped right out again.

But you've stayed calm, stated the very obvious and rational arguments, and your lovely dog has plopped on the sofa waiting for you.

Many voices here and prior to Mumsnet-activism have said sports was the issue that may alert people to the wider issue. But it needed someone with your profile to really get it out there.

You have. And hopefully not to any long-term personal cost.

I hope doggy finally got out for a walk. But thank you for putting Flash's walk on hold to stand up for women and girls everywhere.

You are awesome.

Dana that bit you quoted is interesting: Through taking post-competition blood samples from a large population of elite athletes, we have shown significant differences in most of the hormone levels between the sexes and between the sporting categories.

Does this mean "immediately post competition"? Because my understanding was that testosterone levels changed dramatically immediately after exertion, and that the levels one should be measuring were "resting levels" as it were. (Where's BowlofBabelFish when we need her?)