Thread by @Karkazis

I want to say something more about the science here as I am often asked about it. My quote is about 1 minute of a much broader convo so... Even in 2021, most researchers say there is not enough evidence to support these bills. 1/x washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/04…

It's the same thing that happened at the elite level. First, they institute a regulation or ban and then look for studies to support it. This is a very nascent area of research and nothing is conclusive.

Even very well-respected sport researchers have said there is no direct evidence for these regulations but that it is their opinion advantages exist.

A 2017 metanalysis: “Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery)

and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.”

Studies since then don't change this assessment. The cited studies I've looked at (many sent to me by Hobson) have issues with data and sampling, statistics, research design, reporting. Most don't include trans people.

BTW, they also express concern sports viewership will go down with inclusion: “If there were no eligibility rules, sport would lose its integrity and near-universal support, and as we have seen during the COVID-19 crisis, sport is much poorer without supporters.

Without rules that are perceived as fair, sport will not engage the younger generation and likely negatively impact future participation rates in the female category, particularly with self-identification at the elite level.”

These debates have been largely characterized as an opposition between scientific evidence and identity politics. Scientific arguments, insofar as they might be said to be such, hold a lot of power.

Scientific or medical knowledge—when it is even drawn upon—is often used opportunistically and supporters will make selective use of evidence to tacitly reinforce their beliefs, and/or moral/normative positions.

In some cases, expert statements from scientists for legal cases make proclamations about the scientific evidence with no scientific citations. In these instances, scientists in academic positions confer authority on the claims via their title, degree, institutional affiliation.

In many cases, the very weak evidence is construed as robust because it fits normative ideologies about sex, gender, bodies, and hormones, and their appropriate relationships. It is also very often what I’ve called elsewhere “pastiche science”

Studies on different (and often irrelevant) populations with different outcome variables appear to hang together as evidence because of normative ideologies that allow for the linking of these studies. Like I said, most studies have no trans people.

Elsewhere I’ve spoken about opportunistic epistemology, which is also operating here: selecting a “scientific” approach that is guaranteed to support a specific conclusion—in this case, physiologically-derived advantage.

Many people, myself included, would rather not argue this on scientific grounds. However, owing to scientism and how persuasive “scientific” arguments are, even those who otherwise support trans rights want a carve-out for sport.

When people challenged the science in the elite sport context, policymakers turned to the concept of “biological males” (and even the notion of a sports sex), which they use inconsistently and opportunistically, to claim trans and intersex girls and women are not “really” women.

So, it is no longer testosterone levels per se that is the concern, but the source of the T (i.e., T from testes). There is a great deal one might say about this, but I will leave it at that for now.

What’s happening in the US very much echoes what I’ve seen in the international elite sport context over the last 10 years. Some of the same people who are involved in the international cases are now driving the move to restrict participation in the US.

These debates encourage people to take sides without looking at the ideologies that frame the debate. And in the meantime trans kids are harmed for political purposes while gender inequity in sport writ large flys plods along.