This is Tupou Neiufu. She is a NZ paralympic swimmer. At two years old, she was injured in a hit a run, and left with a permanent brain injury causing hemiplegia.
She won her first Olympic gold medal at Tokyo 2020.
This is Lisa Adams. She is a NZ paralympic shotputter. She has left hemiplegia.
In 2020, she won her first Olympic gold medal and, in separate competition, set the world record for her event.
This is Sophie Pascoe. She is a NZ paralympic swimmer. At 2 yrs old, she suffered severe leg injuries, resulting in left amputation below the knee, in an accident.
She did not win her first gold medal at Tokyo 2020.
She joined an elite club of 40 athletes with 10 Olympic golds.
This is Anna Grimaldi. She is a NZ paralympic sprinter and longjumper. She was born without a functional right forearm/hand.
She jumped her way to her second Olympic gold at Tokyo 2020.
This is Holly Robinson. She is a NZ paralympic javelin thrower. She was born without a left forearm/hand.
She won her first Olympic gold at Tokyo 2020.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Most of the studies used to ban transgender women so far are based on the performances of cisgender men, which scientists have argued is not an appropriate comparison.”
That’s me, @TLexercise and others.
“Others” including the ones moaning about not having their say. You know, the say they took for granted. The one they didn’t tell @nrarmour about.
Ever read their archery paper?
“Other studies have compared the performances of transgender women athletes with sedentary cisgender women, also argued as an inappropriate comparison.”
NGL, bit flummoxed here. Any ideas?
If you want inappropriate comparisons, try the Fat Bloke Study. Written by the scientists moaning about being excluded.
Nancy @nrarmour links to it. Fails to care that the reason why trans-identifying males can’t jump as high as the female comparators is that they are 20kg heavier, carrying way more fat, and are far less fit.
For disclosure, I have not been part of this IOC working group.
So the actual paper is fine. I’ve only skimmed, but it looks at gene expression between male and female humans and mice, to answer questions about the evolution of genes associated (or not) with sex.
The authors - who admit in peer review that these graphs exaggerate overlap - suggest in discussion that if one were to look at gene expression in, say, the skin from an individual within the overlap, you could not identify whether that individual was male or female.
It’s a high-level take on a more simple principle in this debate: overlapping height, and is a 5’8” individual male or female?
The authors use the same analogy in the introduction.
Even the ones who said it was “just a few”. They knew the scale.
Even the ones who said “you’re racist” as they fervently argued that black women are fundamentally different to white women. They knew the scale.
Also a poorly kept “secret” is that the majority of this cohort are 5ARD, where males can appear to be female at birth but have male-pattern athletic advantage.
Birds use genetic sex determination, just like humans.
The "make male" gene for humans is called SRY, and it lives on the Y chromosome.
If you have functional SRY and its downstream transcriptional storm, you will make testes and make male.
Birds differ. Their "make male" gene is called DMRT1.
It pretty much works like SRY, in that it's immediate downstream target is the parallel gene in both humans and parrots, and the ensuing transcriptional storm triggers testes development (testes being male, of course).
"This model of estradiol’s role in improving resistance to wound sepsis predicts at least four “sexes” across two treatment groups: females who are in the proestrus phase, females who are in the diestrus phase, females who are postmenopausal, and males."
This is Sarah Richardson, of the Fuentes review.
Four "sexes", three of them female and the other male. JFC.