Here’s another example of an extremely poor reading of a concept related to testosterone and male sports advantages. Here a scientist takes the admittedly poor research by World Athletics to conclude that T is not driving most (or all) the male advantage. This is wrong because... 
...the necessary comparison here, the crux of the issue, is not whether some females WITHIN the female category have advantages, but the male vs female advantage. As such, trying to find a relationship between T & performance WITHIN men or women is pointless and irrelevant to...
....the discussion. The question is whether the T difference BETWEEN men and women (and specifically, the androgenization driven by T) explains performance differences BETWEEN men and women. And it does. Aside from this, whoever makes this error should be ashamed of their lack of
...insight and application, because the failure to find an association between T & performance WITHIN men or WITHIN women is obvious. That’s because they’re homogenous groups with respect to T’s effects. Women don’t have it, men do. So it behaves like height in the NBA or VO2max
...in elite marathon runners. Neither predicts performance within that narrow, elite group. Why? Because they all already have the attribute. It got them through door, but once “inside” there are many other factors that matter. Only a fool would dismiss the role of the attribute
Aside from this, the expert in that original article makes two more poor errors in only two sentences. First he invokes the “trans athletes aren’t winning everything” argument to suggest no advantage. So poor. Advantage is relative to self, not others. Just like a cyclist with a
...motor wouldn’t always win a bike race, or a doper doesn’t always win a marathon. Their failure doesn’t mean motors and doping don’t provide advantages. The outcome says more about the starting level of the athlete with the advantage than it does about the size of the advantage
And then the final error is the one that says “every sport requires different talents and anatomies for success”. This is perhaps the stupidest assertion of the three. Has this expert not realized that in every sport, 1000s of men outperform the best women? Would he explain this
...as the result of thousands of men having these anatomies and talents, and not a single woman? And might one not wonder why no women have had these qualities in sufficient amounts to match say, the 995th best man? Or the 3000th best? Maybe there’s another attribute, one that is
...vastly different between men and women that causes this, such that we should have a separate category for populations with certain “talents and anatomies” to compete fairly and safely. Honestly, it’s ridiculous, this trident of arguments.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
