Endogenous testosterone is the only natural physical characteristic for which women/female athletes are deemed ineligible. There are no such characteristics for which men/male athletes are deemed ineligible. 
The irony is that the @WorldAthletics main evidence Bermon and Garnier (2017) establish my argument against T limits for women’s sport. One-eighth of cis men are naturally already below the upper ‘normal’ range for cisgender women.
There’s no relationship between endogenous testosterone and performance in men. There is a highly dubious relationship, at best, in women.
The @WorldAthletics own evidence confirmed Testosterone is a hopeless unreliable predictor of performance in post- puberty athletes. It cannot serve the function the IOC, IAAF, and other sports organizations like @BritishCycling want it to.
For these reasons alone, no endogenous testosterone limit policy will be effective at promoting fairness in competition.
Bermon and Garnier (2017) found that 12.7 percent of cisgender men had endogenous testosterone levels below 0.23nmol/L fT. And a large percentages of elite cis male athletes are naturally below 5nmol/L. Of course, trans women are not cis men.
But nonetheless, the newly proposed @BritishCycling policy of 5nmol/L wouldn’t exclude these athletes from women’s competition (provided they received a legal document that they’re ‘female’, even by an unscrupulous government).
What this means is some trans women pre HRT may have T levels well below the 10 or 5 nmols\L and these athletes could compete with no HRT. Or a trans athlete like me that was 30nmol\L pre transition becomes unwell way before I lower my T to under 10 or 5 nmol.
The point is the only normal T level for each individual is their normal T level and their normal T level only. You cannot compare T levels between two individuals you are better off measuring the size of athletes feet.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
