Ross Tucker Profile picture
Jun 21, 2021 10 tweets 4 min read Read on X
@tomhfh I can assure you that I am not the one who is confused. Let’s take weight - a weight class exists for boxing in BOTH men AND in women. Why is that? What would happen if we mix the sexes at the same weight? So again, let me ask, since you feel you know this: How would you do it?
@tomhfh Let’s take the first step. We use weight. We say that a male at 70kg should be accepted into women’s sport at 70kg. Now we discovered that this male is 34% stronger than the weight-matched female. Now what? We have to screen for strength, is that right? How do we do this in a
@tomhfh …credible and valid way? Which tests would you use? What about punching power, which is 260% higher in males? Even if that is adjusted for mass, it stays say 150% higher. Which test might be conducted to match those together? Now think about speed - males are 10-15% faster than
@tomhfh …females, so if you're doing this in football, or rugby or hockey, you now need an algorithm or some kind of adjustment factor that accounts for mass, strength, power, speed. And we haven’t yet considered skeleton factors and cardiovascular factors. So it’s getting quite complex
@tomhfh Next, think about some logistics. What happens if you can develop this algorithm or model to somehow “handicap” a male in order to let them compete in women’s sport? I’m sure you’d agree you need to have different thresholds for elite vs sub-elite sport? So a club player would be
@tomhfh …permitted to play against women club players at a different standard than elite vs elite. Which means you’d need to re-classify people as they move through sports pathways. You’ll also create a DISINCENTIVE for a person to ever improve, because once classified by this unicorn
@tomhfh …algorithm, they can’t get faster, stronger, better, or they’d be reclassified into a new category. So that’s anti-sport - you’d literally be encouraging people to stay where they are, not improve. In the context of ‘cheating’ the system of course. And ultimately, even if this
@tomhfh …rainbow system were to work, you’d even up with a situation where a male who is at the 20th percentile within men is now racing against the very best females in the world, the top 1%, and you’d be saying “These athletes are equal”. Because Doug Leadfoot, 100m sprinter from Cape
@tomhfh …Town, who is a bit smaller, slower and weaker than his male counterparts, is now being to be classified as similar to Shelly-Ann Fraser Pryce or Dina Asher-Smith, because of “mass and hormones”, and they’ll race each other in a sideshow of a race that relegates women. Great
@tomhfh …concept. Maybe that’s the D-race in the Olympics. Followed by the E, F and G races, until we get to the one with 42kg weight limits, where it’s only women left. But loads of mediocre men doing their thing against exceptional women. So…am I still confused?

• • •

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

Nov 11
At some point in the future, I'll share a presentation that goes through male vs female physiological differences and the biological reality of sport, to explain what some have (wilfully) misunderstood. But for now, here's a pen review of this absurdity promoted by @BJSM_BMJ Image
Number 1 (summary conclusions only, mind) Image
Number 2. This might be the most egregious straw man ever erected. As if anyone really believes it is all muscle size and strength Image
Read 8 tweets
Aug 5
The IOC appear unsure of why sport would test the sex of athletes. In a bonus (short 16min) podcast, I explain the reasons, how categories only work when excluding some people and why screening is not arbitrary but essential to fairness & safety for women: open.spotify.com/episode/0nhX9D…
It strikes me that the IOC response to the controversy is to ignore the test results, instead choosing to criticize the reason for testing. This enables them to deflect the implication of the test results. The reasons for testing, more generally, is what I cover in the podcast 1/
An organization that is sincere about the integrity of women's sport would deal with BOTH issues. By all means, criticize targeted testing & seek a better way to do it (also in the podcast), but recognize that those test results are telling you that males are fighting females 2/
Read 6 tweets
Aug 2
I have some thoughts on this, if I may. First, the cheek swab for those not in the know is a simple and non-invasive test that allows them to distinguish between people who are XX and XY, by scraping cells off the inside of the cheek, and checking under microscope. However...
...the problem for sport is that when it's applied this test in the past, it has produced some controversies. Here's an account from one athlete on their failed test, having previously passed it: What this, and other cases (Ewa Klobukowska) remind us is...thelancet.com/journals/lance…
...that "tests" are not perfect, and this has important implications. However, sport can quite easily work around this, simply by understanding that the cheek swab should not be thought of as a test, but rather a "SCREEN". The difference is that you don't act on the screen result
Read 7 tweets
Apr 16
Basically, IOC paid tens of thousands to show that a small slice of the female population overlaps in performance with a small slice of the male population, and now try to spin it as proof of no advantage. Could’ve watched Boston yesterday to see overlap. It is totally irrelevant
If that slice of the female population happens to come from further towards the “high” end of athleticism, and the male slice is further to the “low” end, of course you’ll find similar performances. Look at the VO2, BMI, Fat %, and you know exactly how this “similarity” was made
And so look at the most crucial section of the paper - participant recruitment & eligibility. It says basically nothing of value for matching 2 populations of interest. I fit these criteria, and I have no expectation that anyone would reasonably compare me to F to assess M adv Image
Read 9 tweets
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
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

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!

:(