The "science"

28 replies

ZeldaFighter · 22/05/2023 08:17

In sports, people keep saying "the science isn't clear" but I don't understand why not. Someone like Lia Thomas must have a perfect dataset of figures for their performance, before and after transition - they're in a semi-professional, well-financed sports team. It must be easy to determine if, how and where their performance has changed. Same for Emily Bridges. Same for loads of transgender cyclists.

I know Emma Hilton and Ross Tucker are mentioned on these pages but surely the data must be so clear, that anyone could crunch the numbers? So why aren't they?

OP posts:

Thatladdo · 22/05/2023 11:37

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 22/05/2023 08:34

The science is perfectly clear. It just gives an inconvenient answer.

Yes, absolutley clear.
Some sections of society have gone insane

turbonerd · 22/05/2023 11:41

NotBadConsidering · 22/05/2023 10:11

Exactly, it’s very easy to demonstrate a drop in cycling power over certain periods of time, particularly if the power being produced is in front of a person while they’re doing it. All they have to do is…not pedal as hard.

Yes. Like Lia Thomas did when it became clear that winning with a pool length (or two) were not good optics.

Just splashed ahead nicely to win by a teensy bit, or even a tie.
See,hey presto! no advantage by being born male and having gone through male puberty.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · 22/05/2023 11:57

turbonerd · 22/05/2023 11:41

Yes. Like Lia Thomas did when it became clear that winning with a pool length (or two) were not good optics.

Just splashed ahead nicely to win by a teensy bit, or even a tie.
See,hey presto! no advantage by being born male and having gone through male puberty.

Show quote history

True but, fortunately (sort of), outside of fake academic studies, most of them are too ego-driven to forgo winning. After all, if they cared about optics, they wouldn't be cheating in the first place.

Flip

1 2