Save female sports evidence thread

[Helleofabore]

I am conscious that the Break it Down for me thread is nearly full. I am therefore hoping that this thread can be an archive thread just for the sports evidence that we can all access and refer to. Now that MNHQ has given us the option for saving threads so we can find them easily, I figure it is a good time.

Please post studies, papers, media articles that pull together references, or informative articles, tweets, videos. Just on sport, the latest policies around sport.

I don't want to be the thread police, but ask that we keep this free of discussion. Can I ask that if you want to discuss something you see here, you start a thread to do so?

Because I would like this to be just information stashed so that people can find the links easily so they also know where to start. And getting into discussion on this thread will mean it will fill up.

Thanks.

For instance the site hecheated has calculated that

"Men and boys have participated in over 8,731 women's competitions.

They have placed 1st at least 2,903 times and top three at least 4,747 times.

They have stolen at least $1,600,087 in prizes and 446 awards...."

Even if this is an underestimation, if starts to show the sustained harm that this inclusion has had. It is indicative, of course, this information has not been verified as far as I can see, And it includes boys as well as adults and it includes any level of sport.

IMANE KHELIF AND 5ARD REPORTED

Parking this here so we can see where this report leads. It may be false and if so, it will be deleted.

https://archive.ph/sPWL9

The Correspondent has poked his nose into the boxer's medical file - the same file that the Algerian Boxing Federation and Imane Khelif are keeping safe. It comes from the tightly closed drawers of two renowned hospitals: the Kremlin Bicêtre hospital in Paris and the Mohamed Lamine Debaghine hospital in Algiers. Where the champion is followed by the crème de la crème of endocrinology: Professors and heads of department, <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/sPWL9/www.facebook.com/watch/?v=710017561304121" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Soumaya Fedala and Jacques Young.

In their report, submitted in June 2023, the two doctors, Young and Fedala, point out, without beating around the bush, Imane Khelif's pathology, an “Alpha 5 reductase type 2” deficiency, a genetic anomaly which leads to metabolic dysfunction in testosterone and dehydroandrosterone”.

and

Results? The “pelvic MRI” shows “ an absence of a uterus” , the presence of “gonads in the inguinal canals” ( testicles in her abdomen, editor’s note) , “a blind vagina” and a micro-penis in the form of “clitoral hypertrophy ”.

Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) analyses show that she carries the “46XY” karyotype… and confirms “the male formula”, without highlighting “ a significant genomic imbalance”.

The “ hormonal exploration ” reveals a “male type testosterone level of 14.7”, while the female gender does not exceed the maximum level of 3.

In short, Imane Khelif is a man in a woman's shell. Or a woman in a man's shell. In any case, not a "normal" girl...

PARK RUN LATEST CONFIRMATION THAT THEY ARE AWARE THE RULES ARE UNFAIR

https://tinyurl.com/35k9sdyw

‘Thank you, Marshal’: How parkrun became a global phenomenon
01 January 2025
Helen Coffey

"As for the transgender debate, Sinton-Hewitt says that, while he never wants to exclude anyone, he’s “troubled” by the idea of women feeling “undermined”. “I don’t know what the answer is,” he tells me, “But parkrun is absolutely not the Olympics. We should make it possible for everybody to participate in the best possible way. And one thing is for certain – parkrun will never, ever be able to check what you tell us your gender is when you register. There are 10 million people; we’re a very small organisation.”

"For now, at least, he believes they’ve made the right decision. “Inclusivity comes first – and fairness, I’m afraid, is affected by the drive towards inclusivity.”

Here is a messy link:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/parkrun-running-5km-fitness-history-20-years-b2672102.html?callback=in&code=MGZKMTMZNDMTYMFMYI0ZZMMZLWFKNGQTNZA0ODFMMWI1ODYW&state=8f2a3a39d0dd4c3ab8bbdc089e2eee9b

Never mind that only fairness for women is impacted in the drive toward including men in the female category.

@Helleofabore and contirbuting commenters. Thank you for this! What an excellent resource.

Just saw the post prior to mine. About how inclusivity comes before fairness.:boggleI know that's what they think because hey ho it's only women. But I'm still shocked at how big a gut punch it feels.

The Real Girls Rock Ad.

https://x.com/xx_xyathletics/status/1886076623088144724

A GOOD DISCUSSION ON WHY CASE BY CASE DOES NOT WORK
AND AN EVALUATION OF HAMILTON ET AL "A unique pseudo-eligibility analysis of longitudinal laboratory performance data from a transgender female competitive cyclist"

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/teb-2024-0026/html

Tommy R. Lundberg, Mary I. O’Connor , Christopher Kirk, Noel Pollock and Gregory A. Brown

Published 4 December 2024

Case by case assessment

The suggestion that the eligibility of trans women in female sports could be determined on a case-by-case basis is a fundamental misconception and fraught with significant practical and ethical problems. A major issue is the difficulty of establishing consistent and objective criteria for these assessments. To determine whether a trans woman has sufficiently attenuated male athletic advantages, various performance metrics must be selected and interpreted. Deciding which methods to use and when to update/change them in a valid and reliable manner would be fraught with numerous obstacles, both practical and theoretical. There are also concerns about whether the determining criteria for including a trans woman in female sports is a reduction in performance by a certain amount, or simply that the performance must be comparable to female athletes. This opens the possibility for sub elite or regional standard male athletes with no reduction in performance being eligible for higher standard female competitions. This is evident in the Hamilton et al. paper itself, where the results demonstrate that the sub elite trans woman in question can be compared favourably to elite female athletes in several variables, whilst outperforming them in several others. Furthermore, determination of the performance characteristics of female athletes for a specific sport would likely be problematic as results will change with time. If the tests are not strictly objective, there would be an incentive for athletes to underperform, which, together with the risk of the athlete becoming “too good” and exceeding the testing threshold, with subsequent exclusion, would run counter to a fundamental tenet of sport: that athletes should strive to achieve their best.

Furthermore, case-by-case assessments risk reinforcing arbitrary and subjective standards of female performance and potentially excluding trans women who do not meet these criteria. This stigmatization is in direct contradiction to the principles of the IOC framework, which the authors frequently cite. The authors also appear to advocate for hormonal treatment as a means for some trans women to participate in female sport. This raises ethical concerns regarding the primacy of health and bodily autonomy. The IOC Framework states’ athletes should never be pressurised by an international federation or any other party to undergo medically unnecessary treatment to meet eligibility criteria. Examples of arbitrary decision making are frequently evident in the paper by Hamilton et al. Firstly, the authors conclude “performance advantage is likely not to exist” following broad comparisons of individual data points to averages from other groups and other studies. There is no attempt to outline what criteria the authors were using to decide whether a performance advantage “likely” did or did not exist. Secondly, the authors remarkably argue that as the trans woman cyclist in question retained advantages in either 54 % or 33 % of the reported variables that they could be allowed to compete against females. Threshold criteria of how many variables an athlete is allowed to have an advantage in is not provided, leaving this to be an arbitrary decision on the part of the authors. Nor is there a hierarchy of variables, as not all variables will have the same impact on performance. This is particularly salient in a sport such as sprint track cycling, where an advantage in just one variable can determine success 6]. Finally, the authors themselves highlight the inadequacy of several of the tests used when attempting to determine sports performance. Considering these problems, the approach taken by the authors provides further evidence that the use of case-by-case testing to determine eligibility for female sport is unfeasible.

Particularly good points:

"There are also concerns about whether the determining criteria for including a trans woman in female sports is a reduction in performance by a certain amount, or simply that the performance must be comparable to female athletes. This opens the possibility for sub elite or regional standard male athletes with no reduction in performance being eligible for higher standard female competitions."

ie. Suddenly a sub-elite athlete becomes an elite athlete

"The authors also appear to advocate for hormonal treatment as a means for some trans women to participate in female sport. This raises ethical concerns regarding the primacy of health and bodily autonomy."

ie. Health concerns due to hormone suppression

"Threshold criteria of how many variables an athlete is allowed to have an advantage in is not provided, leaving this to be an arbitrary decision on the part of the authors."

ie Arbitrary decisions because no published levels of advantage to compare against, and what is an acceptable reduction anyway because there will still be advantage.

ON PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN

Sex-based differences in swimming performance in 10-years-old-and-under athletes in short course national competition

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12237

Gregory A Brown, Brandon S Shaw & Ina Shaw

Published 7th December 2024

Conclusion

The present data indicates that prepubertal males swim 1.16%–2.63% significantly faster than females in the 50 yd (45.7), 100 yd (91.4), and 200 yd (182.9 m) freestyle, 100 yd backstroke, 50 yd breaststroke, 100 yd butterfly, and 100 and 200 yd IM, but not in the 500 yd (457.2 m) freestyle, 50 yd butterfly, 100 yd breaststroke, or 50 yd backstroke (although the differences in the 50 yd backstroke approached significance). The present data do not explain why there are sex-based differences in some, but not all, of these events. Based on the present and previous data indicating that prepubertal males swim faster than prepubertal females in most events, there seems to be little justification to eliminate sex segregated competition in youth swimming.

Furthermore, this study serves as a valuable contribution to our comprehension of the intricate interplay between sex differences and swimming performance in prepubertal children. Although further research is imperative to refine and expand upon our current understanding, the findings presented here underscore the significance of considering sex-specific factors in the assessment of swimming performance in prepubertal children. Acknowledging and investigating these differences not only advances our knowledge in sports science but also holds potential implications for training strategies tailored to individual needs. As we delve deeper into this realm, the multifaceted nature of sex-related influences on swimming performance in prepubertal children becomes increasingly apparent, allowing for more targeted and effective approaches in the pursuit of athletic safety, inclusion, and excellence.

Point made by author on twitter:

"In 8 out of 12 events boys swam significantly faster than girls and there were no events where girls were significantly faster. More evidence that sex matters in sports!"

https://x.com/BrowngaGreg/status/1865528288644382872

This is one of the main points:

Males were 1.16%–2.63% faster (p < 0.05; effect sizes 0.376–0.596) than females in the 50 yards (yd; 45.7 m), 100 yd (91.4 m), and 200 yd (182.9 m) freestyle, 100 yd backstroke, 50 yd breaststroke, 100 yd butterfly, and 100 and 200 yd IM. There were no significant sex-based differences in the 500 yd (457.2 m) freestyle, 50 yd backstroke, 100 yd breaststroke, or 50 yd butterfly. The individual fastest time for a female was faster than for a male in the 50, 100, and 500 yd freestyle, 50 and 100 yd backstroke, 50 and 100 yd butterfly, and 100 yd IM.

Although in eight out of 12 events the individual fastest times were from females, in eight out of 12 events the average male times were significantly faster.

ON PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN

Another study from Gregory Brown and team regarding children. They have now covered running, swimming and now other track events.

Sex-based differences in shot put, javelin throw, and long jump in 8-and-under and 9–10-year-old athletes

Gregory A Brown, Brandon S Shaw & Ina Shaw

Published 14 December 2024

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsc.12241

Highlights

Males in the 8-and-under age group outperformed females of the same ages by 19.3% in shot put, 32.6% in javelin throw, and 4.7% in long jump.

Males in the 9–10-year-old age group outperformed females of the same ages by 6.5% in shot put, 23.5% in javelin throw, and 3.9% in long jump.

The average differences between the first through fourth place finishers within males and within females were smaller than the sex-based differences between males and females in all but 9–10-year-old shot put.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, although some have stated that the prepubertal sex-based differences in athletic performance are immaterial or absent, the present data indicate that in the 8-and-under group and 9–10-year-old age group, males achieved greater distances in shot put, javelin throw, and long jump. Although some females in these age groups threw or jumped farther than some males, the average distances for shot put, javelin throw, and long jump for males were farther than for females; the best performing males threw and jumped farther than the best performing females and the average differences between the sexes were larger than within sex differences for the top 4 finalists (i.e., those in closest competition for a medal) for all events and ages except shot put in the 9–10-year old age group. As throwing and jumping are key components of many sports, these sex-based differences in shot put, javelin throw, and long jump between males and females ages 10-and-under should be considered when sport governing bodies and policy makers consider the issue of sex-segregated sporting categories.

EVEN AFTER 5 YEARS MUSCLE STRENGTH IN MALE ATHLETES ON HORMONE TREATMENT REMAINS UNCHANGED

Longitudinal changes in regional fat and muscle composition and cardiometabolic biomarkers over 5 years of hormone therapy in transgender individuals

Tommy R. Lundberg, Andrea Tryfonos, Lisa M.J. Eriksson, Helene Rundqvist, Eric Rullman, Mats Holmberg, Salwan Maqdasy, Jennifer Linge, Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard, Stefan Arver, Daniel P. Andersson, Anna Wiik, Thomas Gustafsson

Published 27 November 2024

Results

Skeletal muscle size increased in TM (21% after 6 years) and decreased in TW (7% after 5 years). Muscle strength increased 18% after 6 years in TM (p = 0.003) but was statistically unchanged in TW. Muscle fat infiltration changed (p < 0.05) almost completely toward the affirmed sex phenotype after 1 year of therapy in both TM and TW. The most notable changes in fat volume distribution were that TW increased total adiposity but decreased visceral fat volume, whereas TM showed increased visceral fat (70%) and liver fat but relatively stable total adipose tissue levels. Although arterial stiffness and blood pressure did not change, there was a significant increase in triglyceride and LDL cholesterol levels and a decrease in HDL levels in TM after 6 years.

Conclusion

These unique longitudinal data underscore the importance of continued clinical monitoring of the long-term health effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy in both TW and, perhaps especially, TM.

DR EMMA HILTON THREAD ON HEIGHT AND HORMONES (INCLUDING SOMETHING ON CAIS

Twitter 13th November 2024

Why male advantage in sport is not a social construct: height. Height is a key difference between males and females. What is nature v nurture? What does that mean for sport?

Bigger skeletons are most obviously driven by longer bone growth. Key bones like those in your thigh (“long bones”) grow from their end to get longer, making you taller.

The site of bone lengthening is called the “epiphyseal plate” or “growth plate”. Here, cells divide/enlarge, making new tissue that pushes the bone ends apart. This tissue calcifies and is replaced by bone, leading to lengthwise growth.

Height is very heritable - tall parents beget tall offspring - and “polygenic” - there are tons of genetic sequences that affect whether you are generally tall, average or short.

Some people carry genetic sequences that make their growth plates very active, meaning they will be generally taller. Others have lazy growth plates, making less new bone and limiting height. Lots of molecular stuff going on at these bone sites!

Height is also affected by environment. You need minerals like calcium to make new bone, so diet is important. Nutritional deficiencies and childhood disease can negatively affect bone growth.

Whether you inherit “tall genes”, “medium genes” or “short genes”, or however your particular combination averages out, is not a social construct. Importantly, both males and females are equally at the mercy of their height genes. When populations can access such things (economic investment, emigration, etc), average heights increase amongst both males and females.

But there is a third key input to height, and that is your sex. That is, when you compare males and females from the same demographic (same ethnicity/genetic pool, same socioeconomics), the males are alway taller. This is not a coincidence.

How does sex affect height? Let’s go back to those bone growth plates. When they are “open”, your bones are growing. This happens throughout childhood, and ramps up massively during puberty.

During puberty, growth plates activity increases under the control of hormones like growth factor hormones and sex hormones. Both estrogens in girls and testosterone in boys stimulate new bone growth. Now here’s the rub. Bone growth (and getting taller) stops when the growth plate “closes” (“epiphyseal closure”), and this is largely driven by only estrogens.

So what’s happening in girls? Well, around 10 yrs old, her body starts pumping out estrogen and she starts her growth spurt. A few years later, that estrogen closes down her growth plates and she stops growing. Females reach adult height around 14-15 yrs old.

https://t.co/enOE44e7pl

And compared to boys? Boys don’t enter puberty until a couple of years after girls. In those couple of years, they are growing in “childhood mode” - this is a couple of extra years that girls don’t get, and underpins a lot of the sex difference in height.

Then their testosterone kicks in, activating their growth plates and up they shoot (just like their female classmates did a couple of years ago). At around 16-18 yrs old, they convert enough of their testosterone to estrogens and their growth plates close, capping their height.

These differential growth trajectories between boys and girls are linked to sex. They are linked to the sex hormones made by the testes and ovaries, the interplay between these sex hormones, and how and when those sex hormones drive pubertal growth.

Even if a girl has inherited “tall genes” and drinks a ton of milk, her sex has an effect on her adult height. Even if a boy has inherited “short genes” and hates dairy, his sex has an effect on his adult height.

The effect of sex on your adult height is an outcome of your reproductive biology and the hormones associated with that reproductive biology. This is not a social construct, it is basic endocrinology.

And that’s what male sports advantage is - the acquisition of a physical trait that aids sports performance because one is male. Being male doesn’t mean you will be tall, it means you will be taller than if you had been female.

A follow up Q. The role of a Y chromosome gene in height is disputed. There is a sex chromosome gene (on both Xs and Ys) called SHOX, that is undeniably involved in height, in the sense that mutations cause bone growth disorders and short stature conditions. The possession of only one working copy has been proposed to underpin short stature in Turner syndrome.

However, typical height patterns in various DSDs can be explained by the hormonal interactions I describe above.

For example, Klinefelter males are unusually tall and have 3 SHOX copies. However, they also usually have low T, which delays puberty (longer childhood growth window) and delays the accumulation of sufficient estrogens to cap growth. Klinefelter males continue to grow long after other males have stopped (perhaps 20 yrs old).

In CAIS/Swyer, there is no T signalling and (usually) an absence of normally-timed estrogen supplementation. This delays puberty and lengthens the childhood growth window. Timing of diagnosis and estrogen supplementation will usually occur later than female growth is capped. So they are taller than female peers.

It's not a closed case, but I'm increasingly persuaded that hormonal milieu has sufficient explanatory power in most cases. The strongest counter is XX males, who are typically shorter than healthy males, but with the same T profile as Klinefelter males, so why aren't they also unusually tall?

SEX BASED GRIP STRENGTH DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN

Sex Differences in Grip Strength From Birth to Age 16: A Meta-Analysis
James L Nuzzo
15 February 2025

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12268

Conclusion

Boys have greater grip strength than girls from birth onward. Prior to age 11, the sex difference in grip strength is small-to-moderate in size, with female grip strength about 90% of male grip strength. At age 11, the sex difference in grip strength decreases because girls reach puberty earlier than boys. Nevertheless, boys still retain a strength advantage at age 11. After male puberty, the size of the sex difference in grip strength increases markedly. At age 16, female grip strength is 65% of male grip strength. With a few exceptions, the observed effect sizes have been largely consistent across time and place. Together, with other findings from the biological and medical literature, the current results suggest a largely biological origin of the sex difference in grip strength in children and adolescents.

AN ANALYSIS ON HOW JUST A FEW MALE PEOPLE CAN CAUSE HARM TO MANY FEMALE ATHLETES - THE FALSITY OF 'JUST ONE'

@hecheateddotorg
18th March 2025

To analyze performance differences between "trans"-identified male and actual female participants in girls' sport, we need look no further than girls' high school track and field.

Track and field provides the clearest data as it is an individual sport and has had the highest number of recorded male participants to date at the high school level.

There are a total of 37 male athletes on record who have participated in girls' high school track and field in the United States.

Of these 37, one athlete participated in only one race due to the cancellation of the season during the COVID 19 pandemic. Another athlete participated in a tech/private school league that did not participate in a state championship. These two athletes will be excluded from the data.

Out of 1,276 completed events, male athletes finished as follows:

1st place: 440 (34%)
2nd place: 188 (15%)
3rd place: 123 (10%)
Other: 485 (41%)

Male athletes came in 1st 34% of the time, only 7% less often than they did than any other place outside the top 3.

They finished in the top three in 59% of their events and outside the top eight in only 19% of their events.

24 of the 35 male athletes (68%) qualified for their respective State Championship meet in a total of 136 events.

When looking at athletes competing against same-sex peers, depending on the state and division of competition, anywhere from 5 to 15% of athletes are expected to qualify.

For example in states that use regional-sectional qualification, the top 4 finishers at a regional meet (often with 2 heats of 8 runners each) qualify for the sectional meet where the top 4 finishers at the sectional then advance to State. This means that out of 32 runners at regionals, only 4 (12.5%) will advance to State.

This number also does not take into account the fact that only the best runners on a team will be entered in a regional meet and often the same runner will qualify in multiple events. A runner may also have a higher chance of qualifying in a relay as 8 runners (top 2 teams) advance to state rather than 4 in this type of qualification.

In other types of qualification or less competitive, smaller regions, it may be easier to qualify.

At the State Championship meet, there are typically 24 entries in each event. 1 of the 24 will win, meaning 4% of the 15% of athletes who have qualified for state will be a state champion, or 0.6%.

Of the 24 male athletes who qualified for state against girls, 11 of them (46%) have won a state championship title, or 31% of the total.

4 of the 35 male athletes (11%) have also achieved a top 10 national ranking.

The percentage of male athletes who have been in the top 10 of all track and field athletes in the female division in the entire nation is higher than the percentage of female athletes who have won a state title.

To find the percentage of female athletes who are in the top 10, we can take the 57 indoor and outdoor events ranked on milesplit. com multiplied by 10 (10 athletes in each) then divide by the total number of female athletes in high school track and field - 506,015 (according to nfhs. org).

This number does not take into account the fact that many athletes in the top 10 appear there in multiple events and several of the 57 events are less commonly run. (All 4 male athletes in the top 10 achieved that placement in a main event).

This means less than 0.11 percent of female athletes achieve a top 10 ranking.

"But not all states require hormone therapy!"

It is true that some states do not require males to undergo any sort of testosterone suppression or medical intervention in order to compete against girls.

We can therefore, look to the athletes who have reportedly begun "identifying" as the opposite sex and undergone "medical interventions" prior to puberty or in early middle school as it has been proposed that males who do so are in line with "average female performance."

There are 3 athletes who have reportedly "transitioned" prior to puberty. Based on their feminized appearances and high voices, we can infer this included puberty blockers.

All 3 athletes qualified for the state championship meet, 2 of the athletes were conference champions, and one athletes was not only a state champion and New England champion, but he was ranked in the national top 10.

None of these performances are in line with an "average" athlete. In fact, the national ranking out of three athletes is statistically unlikely to the point of being impossible without an athletic advantage.

"But you just know about the athletes who are good. There could be more you don't hear about because they don't win anything."

When we look at the expected percentages, we can see that about 6 out of 1,000 athletes win state and 1 out of 1,000 are in the top 10 national ranking.

In order to see the 24 males as state champions and 4 males in the top 10, there should be around 4,000 males who have competed in the girls' division in track and field. (3,965 additional athletes, none of whom can have won a state title).

There have been 37 on record.

Numerous state senators and legislators have come forward testifying to the number of "trans"-identifying males participating in their states.

When these legislators testify that there have "only been 2" in the state, or in the case of Ohio, 17 athletes in 8 years, and these numbers include all sports, and when male athletes have been banned from participating in girls' sports in about half of the states in the nation, it is not likely that there are an additional 3,963 male athletes that not only does nobody know about, but who also have not won a single state title.

In regards to the prepubescent "transitioners," there should be an additional 1,000 of them who have not won a state title or achieved a top 10 ranking. This is also highly unlikely, as we've seen multiple prepubescent "transitioners" in other sports also winning national and state championship titles.

Male participation in the female division is not just unfair, it is blatantly so.

These percentages do not reflect the cost to the female athletes behind them. Just 2 male athletes in cross country and track and field in Maine have negatively impacted over 2,000 female athletes.

If each male athlete negatively impacted 500 female on average, that means over 18,500 female high school track and field athletes in the United States have been forced to compete against and have been negatively impacted by these boys.

This includes loss of titles, loss of medals, loss of relay spots, loss of entries in large meets, loss of qualifications for championships, loss of records, loss of privacy, and loss of confidence.

*2 male athletes in Maine negatively impacted over 1,600 girls

3 boys in Washington, over 2,000

Thanks @HelleofaboreI live in Maine and I will be sharing this with my representative in the State legislature.

Really important Britinme, especially for Maine. Best of luck.

link

https://x.com/hecheateddotorg/status/1901812945627017432

Adding this insightful email from WoLF to the fact checker for the Jon Oliver show. I found it quite interesting as a non-academic reply to some of the tropish questioning we see.

https://womensliberationfront.org/news/last-week-tonight-contacts-wolf-seeking-comment-on-womens-sports

https://archive.is/xfEqu

Particularly this part:

The requirement to accommodate 'trans inclusion' in sports is only being forced on one sex: women. Why is that? Why don't we see FIFA Men's World Cup teams flooded with women identifying as men, demanding to get on the pitch? Where are all the former female athletes, now 'transgender', in the NFL, AFL, Canadian hockey leagues, US basketball leagues, and heavyweight boxing championships? No women are walking off the field with men's medals. It's only men taking medals from women. We'd love to understand the mental pretzel people are operating within where they don't see this as sexist oppression. There is an absolute conflict with women's sex-based rights when gender ideology vaults 'transgender' as a new and supreme protected class over women and girls. Radical feminists always have known this was a problem and we've been pushing back for ages.

The framing of your questions indicates you seek to discredit SheWon.org because volunteers put it together. You question its accuracy and some of the ways it calculates the loss to women and girls. But you missed that sports authorities and organizations like the NCAA and IOC aren't compiling that data, as they've obliterated sex with gender identity. There is an implied sense of outrage in your questions - how dare women keep track of stolen sports titles!

That smacks of Progressive Misogyny.

You questioned why stats are being compiled on more than one medal lost when a male wins a women's competition. There's a ripple effect from introducing an element (men) to women's sports competition that should never have been there:

1. The female that would have been the winner, if not for a male competing, is now knocked into second place.
2. That knocks the second place female winner into third place.
3. Which then knocks the third place female athlete off the podium completely.

Plus the woman or girl who never got to compete at all, and the ones who choose not to for their own safety or dignity! When you think about the girls who never competed because of this newly erected barrier of having to face males in competition as a female, just counting lost titles actually UNDER counts the number of impacted female athletes.

There are so few opportunities for female sports scholarships and monetary prizes that this male colonization of the tiny bit of terrain female sports occupies is particularly cruel. This is happening globally.

Progressive misogyny is misogyny, and as feminists, we reject it every bit as much as we reject restrictions on our reproductive rights, commercial sexual exploitation of women by men, and male violence against women.

Men have learned that they can enter women's sports by just saying they are women now. Some men game that. Other men try to expose the fallacy of 'inclusivity' in women's sports.
Humans can't change sex, but will absolutely game a system that seems tailor-made for them to do so. Southpark aptly illustrated how men will enter and dominate women's sports by saying they're now women in the "Go Strong Woman, Go" episode in 2019.

Men who know inclusion of males in women's sports under the banner of trans is a farce are trying to show the world just how idiotic forced 'inclusion' is. In 2023, male powerlifting coach Avi Silverberg entered the female competition to openly mock Canada's policy of letting any men who identify as a woman into women's sports. He was allowed to compete, and of course he dominated. He then gave numerous interviews to media precisely to expose how wrong it is to let men like him compete against women.

We play sports with our bodies, not our identities. We hosted a great speaker in October, Dr. Greg Brown, a sports medicine specialist at the University of Nebraska. His talk was "Males and female's bodies are different, and that matters in sports." You can see it here:

His research showed that even after taking opposite-sex hormones, trans-identifying males still outperformed top female athletes.

Summing up, there is just no fairness possible when males are allowed to compete with women in women's sports categories.

What about other categories besides sports on shewon.org?

Title IX in the USA was passed to give girls a chance to play sports. Before it passed, girls had no places to practice and compete. They had to wait until boys weren't using those spaces. Girls wore the hand-me-down jerseys of boy teams. Title IX made sports possible for girls. All kinds of activities for women and girls to enjoy and compete in have sprung up since then. The gain here in providing opportunities for women and girls being able to participate and achieve in all aspects of public life cannot be underestimated. This righted centuries of exclusion of women and girls. It's unbelievably ironic that males now seek to colonize all things female, and any objection by women is met with threats, silencing, and ostracization, mostly by men, which serves to exclude women and girls from public participation. To us, this is absolutely oppression of females, erupting in new form.

(Incidentally, it was because of this media request that it was discovered that D (Dee) Brent is a male researcher who claims to be a woman. Brent is one of the ‘fact checkers’ for John Oliver.)

ROSS TUCKER ON ‘FAIR COMPETITION’ and ‘COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE and the FA policy

Ross Tucker (Science of Sport)
07:22 16/4/2025

“The FA policy that allows males into women's football is shambolic. One of the most revealing docs you'll ever read on this issue. Convoluted & illogical, it is a shrine to cowardice, intellectual dishonesty & their attitude towards women's sport. “

“It asks the person who is male, playing against women, to sign a document saying they accept increased risk that arises from sex differences. Yes, the male. Not the woman, who faces that risk without the ability to consent, or even know they're facing it.”

“It does so in an Appendix, which is to be signed by female players who "wish to play football in the men's game". It clearly recognizes consequences of sex differences, with their safety (and unfairness) implications for females. Males into women's football? No problem for women.”

“Why no problem? Because of this 'nifty' loophole they think they've created, where "match observation" will ensure that no player presents a safety or fairness risk created by that (recognized) male advantage. This is the case-by-case fallacy, which women should reject outright.”

“So many issues arise out of this delusion, but one (of many) that women should reject is that this "exemption on the basis of relative mediocrity" warps the entire premise of their sports category. It means a Tier D footballer with male advantage can play Tier A women's football.”

“"Male footballer in the 5th division?"”

“"No problem, you'll fit right in with 2nd division females" (who are strong, fast, athletic, trained, and relatively superior to you, despite your male advantage).”

“Imagine telling a heavyweights they can fight middleweight boxers, because they're not all that good, so it's fair to fight down, just don't be too strong, powerful or good. “

“It's preposterous.”

“And the FA are doing it to women.”

“A policy fuelled by a concoction of ignorance, cowardice and weird misplaced good intention - a group of people have discussed it and said "Male advantage is clear, that's the reality. Let's find a way around it, and we'll also have to get signed waivers, just not from women"”

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/1912391069595021565?s=46

Specific dates leading up to the cessation of sex testing were:

1992 - Dr. Arne Ljungqvist becomes a member of the IOC and continue5 to date an educational program to inform the IOC about scientific and
ethical issues related to laboratory-based gender verification.

1996 - Most major professional medical societies have passed resolutions against chromosome-based gender screening in sports.

1996-1997 - IOC World Congress on Woman and Sport passes a resolution to abandon gender verification at the Olympics. Women's Sports Foundation
publishes a policy statement against blanket chromosome screening in support of IAAF model. The Norwegian parliament outlaws gender verification in sport. The IOC Medical Commission is unconvinced and the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games is contractually committed to on-site, laboratory-based, gender veritication of all female althletes competing in women's events.

1997-1998 - Arguments for and against change are presented to the IOC Athlete5 Commission by Professor A. Liungqvist and Dr. B. Dingeon, respectively. Prince de Merode and Dr. Hay argue for their original policy of blanket gender verification at IOC-sponsored sporting events. Athletes
Commission nonetheless calls for the discontinuation of the present system and rccommenda replacing it with a "reserve clause" system based on IOC Medical Commission intervention on an individualized basis, following scientific and ethical guidelines.

1999 - IOC Executive Board accepts unanimous recommendations of its Athletes Commission. Blanket gender verification screening of all female
athletes will not be conducted at the 2000 Millennia1 Games in Sydney, on a conditional basis for later review.

Importantly, for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics they surveyed the female athletes and found:

"At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not
they were made anxious by the testing procedure. Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure. Forty-six athletes were made "anxious" by the testing requirements that preceded their competitive events.
No males were found to masquerade as females, and all females who were found to be SRY positive competed."

"Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued"

They didn't listen to female athletes it seems.

Thank you for your diligent and important work on this, @Helleofabore

Excellent work. Thank you.

VIDEO ON SPORTS SEX TESTING

www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/sex-screening-in-sports

This video is a good resource for anyone who wants to know about sex testing protocols in sport.

I don't know if this is suitable for your thread @Helleofabore but I found it incredibly depressing nonetheless to find how many women buy into this stuff.

A team of women ex-international rugby players have played a team of TW, none of whom play to any meaningful level, and because the women won this 'proves' that TW don't have a physical advantage over female athletes.

These women should hang their heads in shame, this utterly cynical charade puts younger and less experienced women and girls in the game at serious risk of harm. Just the name of this initiative, Ruck You, says it all!

www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2025/06/02/red-roses-players-ruck-you-transgender-cis-women-match-oslo/

ANOTHER STUDY THAT MALE CHILDREN HAVE PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE

Sex Differences in 1600-m Running Performance and Participation for Children Aged 6–12 yr

Christensen, Mandy W.; Griffiths, Christine M

Summer 2025

journals.lww.com/acsm-esm/fulltext/2025/07000/sex_differences_in_1600_m_running_performance_and.5.aspx

Abstract

Introduction

In children, females participate in sport and physical activity less than males and have lower peak oxygen intake values. How this sexual dimorphism in the aerobic capacity of children affects the aerobic performances of children in a 1600-m race and whether the reported discrepancy in sport and physical activity participation accounts for any sex differences in aerobic performance are unknown. The purpose of this study was to 1) identify sex-based differences in aerobic running performance at 1600 m for children aged 6–12 yr and 2) investigate sex-based differences in participation in children and any relationship between participation and sex differences in aerobic performance.

Methods

We compared 1600-m running velocities (in m·s−1) and participation for 3621 children in the United States in grades 1–6 (ages 6–12 yr) for the years 2007–2014 that were obtained from a publicly available website (runnercard). We correlated the female participation with the performance difference between the sexes for each year and grade. We also created a mathematical model to predict the mean velocity () needed to equalize the sex difference in performance if participation was equalized.

Results

Male children were faster (3.00 ± 0.53 m·s−1) than female children (2.77 ± 0.49 m·s−1) at every grade level, with an average difference of 7.7% (P < 0.001). Participation was lower for female children (46.2%; χ2 = 13.0, P = 0.02) and there was no correlation between female participation and the performance difference between sexes (Pearson’s r= 0.255, P = 0.96). needed to equalize the sex difference in performance if participation was equalized was 4.39 m·s−1, which was greater than the observed female mean plus two standard deviations.

Conclusions

Male children are faster than female children at running 1600 m at ages 6–12 yr. This sex difference was not a result of lower female participation and suggests that innate physiological sex differences may be responsible.