,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Kudos to transwoman Joanna Harper for debating the science around male performance advantage in trans-athletes. Listen to the interview when it's broadcast on Saturday 9th between 10-11am on @bbcworldservice
Joanna Harper is the author of the study that the @IOC based its decision on to allow male-born trans athletes to compete against females after reducing Testosterone to 10nM for 12 months. This study is not relevant, robust or independent. sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabst… 
3) It's a retrospective study comparing 6 self-reported race times before & after transition, some of which had 20 years between the data points! The confounding variables makes any interpretation of this study utterly meaningless. Harper presented this at IOC consensus meeting.
4) 12 months later 3 members of the IOC consensus meeting (1 of whom was Harper) said in a published review "given the paucity of relevant research .... urgently need properly designed intervention studies". So why have rules been changed BEFORE proper research has been done?
5) Male advantage is 10-30%. The difference between getting a medal or missing out is <1%. Even a tiny residual male advantage left after transition will skew medal tables & world records. We need ROCK SOLID evidence to show 100% advantage lost, not anecdotes from 6 trans people
6) The idea of using T levels to determine eligibility for male and female categories IGNORES all the other physiological factors impacting performance. Some of male puberty is driven by T, some other factors, some changes are permanent.
7) To say all male performance advantage is eliminated after transition is simply nonsense. You don't need a scientist to tell you that.
8) To say all male performance advantage is eliminated after transition is simply nonsense. You don't need a scientist to tell you that.
