Thread by @Scienceofsport

Basically, IOC paid tens of thousands to show that a small slice of the female population overlaps in performance with a small slice of the male population, and now try to spin it as proof of no advantage. Could’ve watched Boston yesterday to see overlap. It is totally irrelevant

If that slice of the female population happens to come from further towards the “high” end of athleticism, and the male slice is further to the “low” end, of course you’ll find similar performances. Look at the VO2, BMI, Fat %, and you know exactly how this “similarity” was made

And so look at the most crucial section of the paper - participant recruitment & eligibility. It says basically nothing of value for matching 2 populations of interest. I fit these criteria, and I have no expectation that anyone would reasonably compare me to F to assess M adv

What this study will be used to argue, is that sports should use case by case assessments. But that remains utterly unworkable, as laid out before by @runthinkwrite, and even World Rugby. It would still be unfair, mind, because the circumstance that allows M performance to equal

@runthinkwrite …to F performance is when you compare higher ranked (better, relatively) F to relatively inferior M. So it is allows relative inferiority to appear equal to relative exceptionalism, in one direction only. The absurdity of this concept is evident when you ask whether 25 year old

@runthinkwrite …should be allowed to compete against 16 year olds? Daft and unfair? Obviously.

“But what if the 25 year old is weaker, heavier, less aerobically fit, and fatter than the 16 year old? Then it’s ok, right”, would be the IOC application of its own research to the question.

@runthinkwrite There is, of course, a possibility that those findings that make the groups unmatched is the outcome after T suppression (such that lower VO2max, higher BMI/fat, are part of the change), rather than the indicators of relative rank in the M population. But that can only ever be

@runthinkwrite …assessed in a longitudinal study. Instead of that, though, what will happen, as it already is, thanks to some sports biological denialism, is PRE vs POST performances will continue to prove the retention of male advantage, and to undermine the integrity of women’s sport. As for

@runthinkwrite …the case by case approach the study will be used to support, pick any one of the TW in the study, say, “participant 9”, and make a case for allowing that athlete into women’s Sport X (athletics for ease), in a way that’s fair & practically possible. I’m interested in the “how”