Thread by @Scienceofsport

The Lia Thomas result last night is pretty straightforward - confirmation of hypothesis. Based on the physiology, it was predictable that a male athlete with sufficient base level athleticism would suppress T, retain enough physiological advantage & thus performance, to win (1/_

At a recent debate on this issue, Malcolm Gladwell raised that legal concept that “hard cases make bad law”, which can be applied in some instances, but here, works the opposite way around - this is a case that is entirely the result of bad “law”, or policy. A policy that…

…by design creates unfairness and exclusion for someone by prioritizing inclusion for another (Emma Weyant, in this case), despite abundant science that shows that significant advantages will be retained. Again, this was known and accepted to be unfair to women. Predictable

For years, people knew that this could (and would) happen. All it would take is for a relatively decent male to be the case. Not at Hubbard level, but a little better. Someone 3% slower than the best men, rather than 10% slower. Close enough to parlay advantage into this result

Still, the stupid counter argument “they’re not winning, so where’s the advantage?” was bandied about. So if there’s a good thing from this, it’s that people will no longer be fooled by that sleight of hand. We now know & see, and many more people are aware of what is happening

And of course, “what is happening” is that women, not men, are not only being asked to step aside to allow men into a category that is necessarily and rationally closed to male physiological advantage, but to accept this, and then also to celebrate it. It’s a travesty for them

The media have driven an extraordinary narrative on this, one that somehow culminated in recent articles that equate trans women to masculine females. Reject this and you must be transphobe, as though only one set of people’s right matter (& it ain’t Women’s!). The total denial

…that this is a colliding rights issue is amazing to me. Another legal adage: “your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. Well, women are being punched on the nose (metaphorically, not literally, though that too has happened and will get worse with this policy)

Where we are now is in some ways a better place, because I see and hear how many more women are saying “No, thank you” in response. That is good. What is not necessarily good (aside from that this even happened) is some of the “red herrings”. For instance, Thomas’ motives don’t

…matter to the issue of fairness, and speculating on that distracts from the fairness & integrity of Women’s sport issue. Also this is not about Thomas per se, who is just the manifestation of the policy. I’d rather see your ire directed at those who facilitated this unfairness.

Another thing that will happen more now is a (not so) subtle shift in the debate. Having been told for years to shut up & accept it because no TW are winning, women will now be told to shut up & accept it for “the greater good”. Or “it’s only one”. Is this progress? At least the

…motives of people are clear and obvious. We will also hear arguments about how TW inclusion should be accepted at sub-elite levels, when titles and prize money and contracts are not involved. Reject that. People don’t get decide that only those things matter to women in sport

Women get to decide. And besides, the beauty of sport is its “predictable” meritocracy and inter-connectedness. That said, where non-zero sum (colliding rights) inclusion is possible, in a safe way, there should be no barrier to welcoming TW into sport. I believe we need to be…

…very clear on what boundaries cannot be crossed and then hold firm on those, but recognize that if fairness & safety are the reasons, then by logical extension, if fairness (that is, selection) & safety are not issues, there is no need for a boundary. Your position is stronger

…if that is recognized and even welcomed. But the line that exists to ensure fairness & safety - that is THE line to focus on and reinforce. Lastly, I want to add that as a physiologist and sports scientist, the current growth of women’s sport should be exciting, giving rise to

…so many wonderful topics of discussion. Strade Bianche 2 weeks ago provided one of the all time great finishes. I remember going straight from watching that into a debate on TW in sports. This is a controversy that sucks air away from Women’s sport, diminishing the achievements

…of legitimate athletes who deserve 100% of the focus & celebration. Aside from directly denying fairness to many, that is also unfair. It matters, so the conversation WILL be had, missteps along the way, but it sure would be nice not to have it. Rather celebrate women (/end)

Some extra thoughts on this. Worth emphasizing that my own personal context is that I’ve been involved in policy, which means legal & scientific defense of arguments matters. Since we can’t KNOW people's motives, they don’t feature highly in the arguments. That does not mean that

…motive is unimportant, and for many, it matters more than fairness or principle. It’s just that for this *particular* fairness issue, it isn’t a priority. The other thing that does worry me a bit, again from my own vantage point and context is that when the debate becomes...

…”personal” (about Thomas, rather than policy), it allows bad faith arguments in the debate to “weaponize” against us collectively, and label us as hateful and bigoted. That in turn makes the constructive part of the dialogue less likely to be heard. So while I completely agree

…that this is a travesty for women, and there is a lot of emotion here, if it becomes *TOO* emotive (which is hard to avoid, and I’m absolutely aware that I am not directly affected so can say this more easily) it might become obstructive for neutral observers, those who are

…perhaps ignorant of these biological realities and who haven’t engaged with the issue enough. From their vantage point, I just can’t see as much mileage in going after Thomas. But again, that’s said within my own context, I know it’s super difficult to ignore from others

I recently had a long discussion with someone, thoughtful, liberal leaning, who acutally has a lot of influence in sports science. His reluctance to become involved is the ‘hostility’. Now, call that cowardice or passive permissiveness etc, but I think he, and many like him, will

…be open to the arguments re fairness & safety, and be allies in support of women. But it’s sometimes too easy to lump all these arguments together, where you get (righteous) anger diluting logic, and people harming their own position by being personally offensive. I just think

…and worry that the media, already so weak-minded & misled, will be easily persuaded that there’s no basis for arguing for protection of women’s sport, that it’s *all* bigoted hateful opposition. It’s a deliberate strategy being used by people who wish to avoid engaging on facts