Systematic review from Joanna Harper on muscular changes in transwomen.

‘These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy.’

bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/…
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.’
Link to our review here:

link.springer.com/article/10.100…
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.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Emma Hilton

Emma Hilton 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 @FondOfBeetles

27 Feb
Over the past month or so, I have been testing the hypothesis ‘Doing X causes Y to happen’.

So I have been ‘Doing X’ a repeated number of times and scoring how often it ‘causes Y to happen’.
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.
Read 8 tweets
23 Feb
Excellent piece here from Jon Pike @runthinkwrite

I’ve often struggled to articulate the fallacious ‘Range Argument’. Jon makes a good job of it.
‘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.’
Read 4 tweets
21 Feb
The argument that sports categories be divided according to current testosterone completely misunderstands the biological function of testosterone.
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.
Read 15 tweets
19 Feb
@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.
Read 6 tweets
19 Feb
Add the NBA to that list.

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?
Read 4 tweets
18 Feb
@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.
Read 13 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!