The R5 interview.
So JH argues that all the participants in their studies have T levels within natal female range. Which are below sport’s requirements.
Adult T levels nm/L: without endocrine disorders.
Male = 8.7 - 29
Female = 0.2 - 1.7
So many Qs re JH studies.
How large are the sample sizes? Statistically meaningful data?
Like for like comparisons ie male, female, athlete to athletes (same sports), age, pre child / post child comparisons?
Survivor bias of the participants?
How are the participants chosen?
Longitudinal- how long?
Age of transition of participants?
Types of transition?
Are the participants still competing or retired?
More over, the IOC has now washed its hands of the T issue and there are no T requirements for the athletes. Individual sports bodies have set arbitrary levels between 5 - 10 depending on which sport.
So, if we follow JH re natal T levels. Are all TW athletes within 0.2 - 1.7, or just the ones in their study?
What evidence did the IOC use to set previous levels at 10 then 5 - still way above natal women’s levels? Given the lack of data.
Why the emphasis on T?
Why can’t natal women dope up to 1.7 or 5 or 10 (excluding the horrific health issues - Flo Jo)?
& I’m afraid this does affect DSD athletes.
Find me a TM competing at elite level against natal men (I don’t count dressage / mixed teams etc…) & I’ll be more receptive to the TW in women’s sports argument.