Emily Bridges claims there is no advantage in sport

[miri1985]

Maybe someone else can explain it to me because as someone who has never been involved with sport at a high level, I don't understand the point if you claim not to be able to beat your rivals, I mean isn't that the point of high level sport? If you're not competitive, what is the point in competing? Wouldn't you just do it for fun otherwise than put your body through high level competition? In a previous interview didn't Emily Bridges state that the aim was to be competitive again?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10857133/Emily-Bridges-determined-prove-boasts-no-advantage-trans-woman-cyclist.html

"In her first interview since, Bridges told DIVA magazine it was wrong to say that trans women in sport retain inherent advantages and claimed to be able to prove it.

'I understand how you'd come to this conclusion because a lot of people still view trans women as men with male anatomies and physiologies,' she said.

'But hormone replacement therapy has such a massive effect. The aerobic performance difference is gone after about four months.

'There are studies going on for trans women in sport. I'm doing one and the performance drop-off that I've seen is massive'."

Totally rubbish re archery. Men still have an advantage.

The only sport that is, and still should be, open for men and women to compete together is equestrian.

Yes. This.
why are people trying to deny what is patently obvious to 99% of people.to not recognise males have an advantage in almost every sport is pure delusion.

But there must be other trans women who are not doing all this egocentric stuff. We just don't hear about them.

Yes, it's unfortunately true that transwomen who do respect women's rights rarely make the news. (Well, except in cases like Miranda Yardley being taken to court for transphobia). Getting on with your life without trampling on women's rights doesn't make column inches.

There was an article on the BBC yesterday
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61591417

All about sport training and menstrual cycles. The article points out how very little evidence there is for the effect of menstruation on sporting performance. Which when women are competing against each other you could argue broadly evens out.

With regards to Emily being the same. Emily is never going to experience the variation in performance caused by a hormonal cycle, never going to have to accommodate a period during a race, I could go on, but you get the picture. We barely know this information about women as a baseline for comparison to start with because most sports science has been for and about men.

All those thousands of pounds going into research to try and prove there’s no male performance advantage, that could be put to better use by studying the female athletes issues and reducing the knowledge gap but no. Men come first as usual.

Meanwhile, Lou Englefield (PrideSportsUK) failing to realise why Jake Daniels gets overwhelming support and Bridges … not so much.

@lunar1 It's not true that, pre puberty, boys are automatically physically better than girls at sport. It depends on which sport, training and drive. One of my DDs could out-swim anyone up to 11 in her school at breaststroke - she'd been swimming since 2, had the technique and determination. However, when puberty struck and boys started benefiting from the hormones laid down since birth for muscle development and growth, she slipped down the ratings. She was not one of those taller than boys until puberty strikes.

My point is that prepuberty (1) most male bodies have been laying down the hormones from birth that will surge in puberty. (2) post puberty those physical advantages will come into play (3) we await world wide science to prove or disprove that even with hormone treatment, male born people retain a physique that outdoes women in most sports (though not, it seems in ultra running or things involving horses or mountains!)

Sports bodies should be funding independent research now - I know some sports bodies are rowing back from TWAW and trying to work out what to do - the levels some sports expected TW to get on hormone levels is far above what women have.

Actually there are some statistics which appear to show that advantage does exist pre puberty. Statistics from US schools athletics shows almost all records to be held by boys and British Athletics statistics seem to corroborate this. Difference is much less and may be affected by societal considerations but interesting all the same. Post puberty the difference between boys and girls is huge.

For swimming, our national development squad distance times (400m+) for girls are slightly faster than for boys aged 11/12 - but for older age groups / post puberty y then the boys times rapidly become much faster.