Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Ross Tucker Profile picture
@Scienceofsport
Aug 23, 2019 • 3 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
I need to update this piece, because since writing, my engagement with many here, plus research from Sweden, has led to some evolution in thinking. At this stage, it seems much more likely that evidence will show that performance advantages are retained even after lowering T (1/)
However, even without that recent evidence, the biological principles for separation into men’s and women’s categories in sport are so strong that to overturn it requires exceptional evidence (2/)
I understand a desire for “compromise” (easy when not directly involved, I’ve realized), and get that we want “inclusivity”, but for the sake of “protected” women’s sport, especially at elite level, self-ID just cannot work. I get that this creates a sport vs society tension (3/)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Ross Tucker

Ross Tucker Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Scienceofsport

Ross Tucker Profile picture
Nov 23, 2023
@NakulMPande The "unbeatable advantage" bit you have taken from these tweets is you manipulating an argument. Because of normal overlap between the populations, some women outperform many men, everyone knows this. But it's irrelevant, as you surely know, no? Or do you need this explained too?
@NakulMPande I'm guessing you might, so let's put it this way - many women, who are exceptional athletes, outperform most* men. But no women outperform all men. The reverse, however, IS true. Some men outperform all women. Their advantage is insurmountable.

* depending on task/sport type
@NakulMPande So the moment you match the populations (eg: International cricketers, Olympic qualified runners, Top 100 ranked weightlifters), the sex-overlap disappears, and the 'worst' male from that group is better than the best female from her respective group. What does this mean?
Read 11 tweets
Ross Tucker Profile picture
Oct 1, 2023
The South African commentators and studio pundits still don’t understand the four elements of the head contact process. Quite disappointing how superficially they explain it. I know it’s imperfect, but it involves more than our SA viewers are told
@fmessack …assessment (eg low danger if tackler is passive, with “passive of feet planted, not going forward, passive tackler rather than dynamic. Mitigation if suddenly change in direction etc). So it’s systematic, with outcomes determined by the (guided) answer to each question.
@fmessack For example what we saw there for Tonga 9 was assessed as head contact yes, foul play, low danger (tackler passive, not dynamic tackle), so YC. But then with mitigation, so he’s given a pen. One can disagree re degree of danger, then it’s red to YC.
Read 4 tweets
Ross Tucker Profile picture
Jul 14, 2023
With the UCI decision today, even if imperfect, it means rugby, swimming, track and field and cycling have all recognized the biological implications of sex, and respected women’s rights to fair and safe sport. The IOC, meanwhile, still believe in “no presumption of advantage”,
…whereas others have recognized that women’s sport has meaning precisely BECAUSE male biology is known to have performance implications. It’s not presumption so much as reality. That’s the start point for scientific evidence. Thereafter, it follows that unless the male biology
…can be removed, entirely, the integrity of women’s sport is undermined when males are permitted to enter it. The “lack of science” is what necessitates a closed category for women, not the accessible one that IOC continues to promote. Today the UCI reached that understanding
Read 8 tweets
Ross Tucker Profile picture
May 27, 2023
@CAMOKAT6 @SVPhillimore Yes, largely, it's the same argument that we've heard for the last few years, once it became clear that there are advantages. It involves a lot of evasive wordplay - overwhelming adv vs meaningful, conflating advantage types, using under-representation to dismiss advantage.
@CAMOKAT6 @SVPhillimore Just to take one - left-handers in fencing. The scale of this advantage is so small compared to male vs female, and you only have to ask one question to reveal this: How many left handed females are competitive against right-handed males? Zero. The gap created by LH vs RH is tiny
@CAMOKAT6 @SVPhillimore ...compared to that created by being male. And yes, we do allow advantages in sport - that's the whole point. But we create categories precisely so that these advantages can be found out by the result. A middleweight champion has advantages, but heavyweights would beat them. Why?
Read 15 tweets
Ross Tucker Profile picture
May 26, 2023
Good to see from British Cycling. Yes, it follows the evidence, and yes, it respects women’s rights to fairness, and their voice. But it still takes a degree of conviction to go against the international governing body (however misguided that policy may be).
The path that leads to this “departure” is interesting. Scientific evidence for retained advantage (and refuting its removal) was there all along, for all parties to recognize. What @BritishCycling had was vocal women who refused to be ignored. Plus a case that demonstrated the
…performance implications of the retention of male advantage. The key, however, was that women forced a conversation that couldn’t be ignored. What the IOC prioritized, as a matter of principle (literally, it’s on their principles), is the diminishing of that voice.
Read 5 tweets
Ross Tucker Profile picture
Apr 19, 2023
This has been deleted, but I'd like to thank @peterjrainford for opening this door to some important points in this debate. First of all, this athlete was *RIGHTLY* disqualified because of the advantage gained by a car. Nobody who argues for fairness in sport would disagree...1/ Image
Second, this athlete finished third, they didn't win. But we know that they still gained an advantage and were correctly disqualified. This should be noted by those who frequently suggest that the (perceived) scarcity of TW who win is evidence that the lack advantages.
Third, we don't care whether the athlete in question used a car for 1% of the race of 50% of the race. That they used it at all is reason for disqualification. Their advantage came from "outside the category", and its scale is irrelevant to fairness. It's unfair at any length (3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(