How strange that this should somehow be relevant. It is doubtless true that, given enough poison, a man might become as weak as a woman, but athletics isn't supposed to be about people poisoning themselves, it is supposed to be about the promotion of good health, both physical and mental.
Taking performance impairing drugs is a freely made choice that has consequences in ability to take part in sport. If trans identified males are enfeebled against fellow males, so that they don't make the team, that is their responsibility. Age and sex are immutable sporting categories and must not be negotiable for LARPing males.
And your use of the accurate terminology 'trans identified males' highlights the biggest reason this article does not engage me as much as it could have.
The persistent use of reality distorting words like 'transgender women', (which my mind will not accept as written) requires that I 'flip the switch' before I proceed.
This is both exhausting and irritating.
And I don't need science to make a case for fairness because I don't care if a man or boy is missing both thumbs and his left foot; he can't compete as a female because he is not a female.
Yes! - mentally rewriting to use accurate language. The junk science has to be debunked, because it's being invoked as authority by those pushing for male inclusion in the female category. Appreciate author's message, but use of ideological language implicit endorsement of gender woo, of which had a gutful.
«This meta-analysis had eight authors, presumably two to four peer reviewers, and at least one editor. Yet apparently none of them identified one or more of the problems I have highlighted here. That is terrifying!»
Unsurprising that research to justify including males in female category is as bogus and shonky as the trans identified males. "Cisgender"/"transgender" women are infuriating descriptors: women need no such qualifications and males making identity claims are not girls/women.
I am a 63-year-old man. If I could show that 63-year-old men are typically physically weaker, slower, or have less stamina than average young women (I'm pretty sure that would be easy) then would that justify allowing 63-year-old men to join the womens' competition in certain sports? No. The point is not to try to put physically diminished or defective men up against women, it is to allow women to compete against one another. "Transwomen" are not women. They are men who identify as women, an entirely different thing. I don't care how, or how much they have deliberately diminished their physical abilities, I am not interested in knowing whether they can out perform women.
I've done some academic publishing, and that's not possible. Peer reviewers are anonymous because otherwise they won't be completely honest in their critiques. Yes, of course, some of them aren't truthful anyway, but I don't think we should give people any *additional* reasons to be untrustworthy.
I know they are anonymous. I’ve often been a peer reviewer. However, I was suggesting the peer reviewers should be named once a paper has been published. Might encourage due diligence, which as obviously lacking with this article.
We are losing science. This very necessary takedown of “advocacy research” is one example of a much larger problem. The defense of the Sexual Revolution has produced numerous instances of question-begging junk science. Is sexual self-indulgence or wishful thinking really worth losing science?
Competitive sports are never 'fair' because the better athlete wins... and THAT'S THE POINT. So if we plan to keep sex and age based categories un-handicapped the argument from fairness is neither necessary or sufficient.
Trans identified males should not be admitted to women's sports because they are NOT females!
> after “1–3 years” of cross-sex hormones
How strange that this should somehow be relevant. It is doubtless true that, given enough poison, a man might become as weak as a woman, but athletics isn't supposed to be about people poisoning themselves, it is supposed to be about the promotion of good health, both physical and mental.
Taking performance impairing drugs is a freely made choice that has consequences in ability to take part in sport. If trans identified males are enfeebled against fellow males, so that they don't make the team, that is their responsibility. Age and sex are immutable sporting categories and must not be negotiable for LARPing males.
Perfectly stated.
And your use of the accurate terminology 'trans identified males' highlights the biggest reason this article does not engage me as much as it could have.
The persistent use of reality distorting words like 'transgender women', (which my mind will not accept as written) requires that I 'flip the switch' before I proceed.
This is both exhausting and irritating.
And I don't need science to make a case for fairness because I don't care if a man or boy is missing both thumbs and his left foot; he can't compete as a female because he is not a female.
Yes! - mentally rewriting to use accurate language. The junk science has to be debunked, because it's being invoked as authority by those pushing for male inclusion in the female category. Appreciate author's message, but use of ideological language implicit endorsement of gender woo, of which had a gutful.
«This meta-analysis had eight authors, presumably two to four peer reviewers, and at least one editor. Yet apparently none of them identified one or more of the problems I have highlighted here. That is terrifying!»
Good summary.
This also simply begs the question why is such “research” relevant at all.
We assign the privelige of women’s sports to women, on the basis of sex, as well as the privelige of men’s sports to men, on the basis of sex.
We don’t assign sports participation on the basis of impairment or strength. We don’t assign sports participation on the basis of bone length or age.
Every “study” which finds that men and women under artificial conditions are somehow equivalent physically is irrelevant to categorical inclusion.
Unsurprising that research to justify including males in female category is as bogus and shonky as the trans identified males. "Cisgender"/"transgender" women are infuriating descriptors: women need no such qualifications and males making identity claims are not girls/women.
I am a 63-year-old man. If I could show that 63-year-old men are typically physically weaker, slower, or have less stamina than average young women (I'm pretty sure that would be easy) then would that justify allowing 63-year-old men to join the womens' competition in certain sports? No. The point is not to try to put physically diminished or defective men up against women, it is to allow women to compete against one another. "Transwomen" are not women. They are men who identify as women, an entirely different thing. I don't care how, or how much they have deliberately diminished their physical abilities, I am not interested in knowing whether they can out perform women.
I think published articles should identify their peer reviewers.
I've done some academic publishing, and that's not possible. Peer reviewers are anonymous because otherwise they won't be completely honest in their critiques. Yes, of course, some of them aren't truthful anyway, but I don't think we should give people any *additional* reasons to be untrustworthy.
I know they are anonymous. I’ve often been a peer reviewer. However, I was suggesting the peer reviewers should be named once a paper has been published. Might encourage due diligence, which as obviously lacking with this article.
Heh, or it will encourage a bunch of infighting and payback. I never underestimate the pettiness of academic types.
We are losing science. This very necessary takedown of “advocacy research” is one example of a much larger problem. The defense of the Sexual Revolution has produced numerous instances of question-begging junk science. Is sexual self-indulgence or wishful thinking really worth losing science?
Competitive sports are never 'fair' because the better athlete wins... and THAT'S THE POINT. So if we plan to keep sex and age based categories un-handicapped the argument from fairness is neither necessary or sufficient.
Trans identified males should not be admitted to women's sports because they are NOT females!
This also simply begs the question why is such “research” relevant at all.
We assign the privelige of women’s sports to women, on the basis of sex, as well as the privelige of men’s sports to men, on the basis of sex.
We don’t assign sports participation on the basis of impairment or strength. We don’t assign sports participation on the basis of bone length or age.
Every “study” which finds that men and women under artificial conditions are somehow equivalent physically is irrelevant to categorical inclusion.
Huh, I'm pretty sure my 5th grade teacher would have given me an F if I had presented a paper this shoddy.