Her conclusions mirror those of a recent review by me and Tommy Lundberg @tlexercise
‘These longitudinal data comprise a clear pattern of very modest to negligible changes in muscle mass and strength in transgender women suppressing testosterone for at least 12 months.’
I am biting my tongue to prevent me bitterly reflecting on the years of abuse I have received for disseminating this data.
Pictures of kittens welcome.
I will say this:
When two groups of scientists that have been cast on ‘opposing sides’ of an issue reach the same conclusions about a dataset, perhaps we might be able to accept what that dataset shows and move forward with solutions.
If I don’t do X, Y rarely happens, but there is a background rate of Y happening in the absence of X.
If I do X, Y almost always happens, but there have been a few times where it didn’t happen.
Not doing X = Y happens in 4/60 tests.
Doing X = Y happens in 57/60 tests.
It’s clear to me (and statistically) that ‘Doing X’ does indeed correlate with ‘Y happening’, and I have a well-known mechanism to assert not just correlation but cause.
‘According to the range argument, however, lots of male-born people, including transwomen, are in the range of females. This means they are not necessarily faster or stronger than the fastest or strongest female athletes just because they were born male.’
‘So, if transwomen are “in the range” of female athletes, then their inclusion in sport is still fair, right?
Wrong.’
It assumes symmetry - that is, if T causes X, removing T will remove X.
That is intuitive and sometimes true, but not necessarily so. Any developmental biologist will tell you that the effects of a molecule on a target system are not always reversible.
Target tissues can be induced to develop in ways that are irreversible or heavily resistant to change.
Once such a developmental change is set, removing the trigger makes no difference.
@GaryLineker Hi Gary. People have tried to get me sacked/suspended for questioning the fairness of inclusion of transwomen in female sports (see pinned academic review for more info).
@GaryLineker Fortunately, my institute has been supportive of my voice.
The same institute whose students no platformed tireless feminist activist and advocate Julie Bindel @bindelj from a debate, ironically, about free speech.
I’ve been lucky. Many other women less so.
@GaryLineker@bindelj In the course of my research, I’ve met some fantastic national and international female athletes, current and retired, who are terrified of even raising questions about current sports policies.
If, as we are told, sporting ability is a random mix of innate talent and acquired skills mapped onto a continuum of bodies, it’s deeply puzzling that very few females have ever possessed a winning combination.
If, as we are told, sporting success can hinge on a favourable socioeconomic climate, why have privileged females never made the grade?
If, as we are told, sporting success can hinge on a favourable cultural environment (or outright nepotism), why have privileged females never made the grade?
@RobynRyle 1. Socioeconomic and similar barriers are not ‘unfair’, they are examples of an ‘unjust society’. We can try to address that in sports as a general good. So broadening access by providing programmes, funding for equipment and coaching, and so on.
@RobynRyle 2. You say: it's deemed unfair for a 126 pound featherweight to compete against a 200-plus pound heavyweight.
Does use of ‘deemed’ mean you don’t actually agree such a match would be unfair?
@RobynRyle 3. On genetic advantages, you cite cyclists/runners with extraordinary muscular metabolism, basketballers/swimmers with skeletal syndromes and baseballers with superior vision.