These are interesting ideas. I'd add that perhaps the somatic mind/body therapies that could heal "gender dysphoria" might be found different for which are successful for natal males compared to natal females. Women deal with greater flexibility, a biological function for reproduction, which probably is related to injuries in our knees and shoulders. The more we know about male/female differences, the better we can craft medications and therapies specifically for each of the 2 sexes.
My contribution is the Wellness Movements playlist at Trans Widow Ute Heggen YT channel.
What about time availability? Do women do more work and therefore have less time to devote to non essential tasks? The hidden work of care needs to be at least touched on.
When the originally critiques targeted article was about sports medicine I think research should focus on sports, not exercise. Not hard. Very very different worlds.
That and your reasoning is why I wonder what’s so significant about the article. I read the two articles and they seemed tangentially related.
If society values equally things which women and men accomplish, and some things are more interesting to women and other things men, you will see a bigger difference in male and female participation and outcomes. That’s what happens in the most egalitarian societies - more differences, and larger difference rather than fewer.
I'm trying to understand what's interesting here, other than anyone thinking 5 minutes about "male bias" in sports research would find that it's true and unremarkable. The original study as presented can be refuted logically without any study necessary.
If in a random population of sports players, there were 3 men for every 2 women, the natural distribution would be 3:2. If in a survey of sports studies, they found that the ratio was 60:40 men to women, then the studies have no bias relative to a natural population distribution. Since they didn't have data of natural distribution of male and females in sports, I can claim the conclusion is false unless they compare the finding to natural distribution. Nothing to do with sex, with "gender", nothing at all. If they were to find that the natural distribution of male / females in sports was 7:2, then their conclusion would be false - the studies are biased towards women. If they were to find the natural distribution was 1:1, then the studies are biased towards men.
However, the article study provides a single clue which is oblique to the entire hypothesis. In it, the population subset who participates in sports beyond high school, amateur or professional, 63% were men, 37% were women. Without any reference to gender or sex, I would state than we have one confirmation that the natural distribution of men to women in sports for a completely random sample is 3:2, demonstrating the original study has a false conclusion in the context of the review.
All the rest only confirms popularity of men's and women's exercise, not really relevant.
Some of the data:
Highest level of competitive sport
Never participated 50 14% 29 4%
Youth level 53 15% 69 10%
High school level 137 38% 492 75%
University, amateur 105 29% 61 9%
Pro or semi-professional 11 3% 8 1%
116 men out of the male set were sports-level; 69 women were: 63% men 37% women in the random "sports" sample group from this survey.
Sufeitzy, you address male vs female participation rates in sports. The authors study was not constructed to measure sports participation rates but rather "to determine whether sex differences in interest and willingness to participate in exercise research exist."
The authors data measures XX/XY "interest in learning of 16 different health and fitness attributes."
Exercise, health, and fitness participation is clearly a separate category than sports participation. Of course there is overlap but your data set is at best tangental to the authors field of inquiry.
“The common expectation that the distribution of male and female research participants should invariably reflect a 50/50 ratio, and that any deviation in representation must be attributed to investigator bias, is logically flawed. A variety of factors, aside from investigator bias, may contribute to a greater representation of men—or women—in such research. For instance, both the interest and willingness of individuals to participate in research may be significant factors”
I assume they wished to demonstrate a logical flaw.
The logical flaw is to assume the natural distribution of men and women in sports is 50:50 and anything otherwise is bias. No research is required because unless you control for natural distribution, which they didn’t, then any conclusions are spurious as to differential “bias”.
The major finding of their report, ignoring the lack of effort to control for difference in presence of men and women at different sports and exercise levels, was that men and women are interested in different types of exercise.
That’s called a trivial finding, like discovering that people find jokes in their native language funnier than an acquired language, or that there less research in sports medicine and exercise for quadriplegics than for able-bodied people.
The willingness to participate in exercise and sports studies I found entirely unconvincing. A majority of the participants didn’t participate in sports, so why would they bother with sports studies? More men than women would agree to participate, but more men than women were in advanced sports. Who knows - maybe they were all the same people?
I was just mystified.
The major interesting part of supplementary information was that they precisely reproduced the observed differential prevalence of men and women in sports in their random sample, without remark.
Your statistical critique examines apples (sports participation rates) while the authors statistical analysis examined oranges (exercise, health and fitness survey participation rates).
It is a fundamental logical fallacy that is often repeated but remains unacknowledged in your argument and completely undermines any illusion of epistemological rigor.
These are interesting ideas. I'd add that perhaps the somatic mind/body therapies that could heal "gender dysphoria" might be found different for which are successful for natal males compared to natal females. Women deal with greater flexibility, a biological function for reproduction, which probably is related to injuries in our knees and shoulders. The more we know about male/female differences, the better we can craft medications and therapies specifically for each of the 2 sexes.
My contribution is the Wellness Movements playlist at Trans Widow Ute Heggen YT channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVAfsQPAgI&list=PLOFlPPQm71Ii-l-xoAlBZc5Iy9xZyfbUY&index=8
What about time availability? Do women do more work and therefore have less time to devote to non essential tasks? The hidden work of care needs to be at least touched on.
Maybe. But men tend to spend more time than women working for overtime pay.
Maybe. But men tend to spend more hours than women doing overtime work.
How many men actually put in over time compared to how many women do the majority of unpaid work? Is it really an equal comparison?
Statistically, men do work longer hours at their jobs than women do.
When the originally critiques targeted article was about sports medicine I think research should focus on sports, not exercise. Not hard. Very very different worlds.
That and your reasoning is why I wonder what’s so significant about the article. I read the two articles and they seemed tangentially related.
But I was repeatedly assured it must be the patriarchy. You're saying that was all nonsense?
If society values equally things which women and men accomplish, and some things are more interesting to women and other things men, you will see a bigger difference in male and female participation and outcomes. That’s what happens in the most egalitarian societies - more differences, and larger difference rather than fewer.
I'm trying to understand what's interesting here, other than anyone thinking 5 minutes about "male bias" in sports research would find that it's true and unremarkable. The original study as presented can be refuted logically without any study necessary.
If in a random population of sports players, there were 3 men for every 2 women, the natural distribution would be 3:2. If in a survey of sports studies, they found that the ratio was 60:40 men to women, then the studies have no bias relative to a natural population distribution. Since they didn't have data of natural distribution of male and females in sports, I can claim the conclusion is false unless they compare the finding to natural distribution. Nothing to do with sex, with "gender", nothing at all. If they were to find that the natural distribution of male / females in sports was 7:2, then their conclusion would be false - the studies are biased towards women. If they were to find the natural distribution was 1:1, then the studies are biased towards men.
However, the article study provides a single clue which is oblique to the entire hypothesis. In it, the population subset who participates in sports beyond high school, amateur or professional, 63% were men, 37% were women. Without any reference to gender or sex, I would state than we have one confirmation that the natural distribution of men to women in sports for a completely random sample is 3:2, demonstrating the original study has a false conclusion in the context of the review.
All the rest only confirms popularity of men's and women's exercise, not really relevant.
Some of the data:
Highest level of competitive sport
Never participated 50 14% 29 4%
Youth level 53 15% 69 10%
High school level 137 38% 492 75%
University, amateur 105 29% 61 9%
Pro or semi-professional 11 3% 8 1%
116 men out of the male set were sports-level; 69 women were: 63% men 37% women in the random "sports" sample group from this survey.
Sufeitzy, you address male vs female participation rates in sports. The authors study was not constructed to measure sports participation rates but rather "to determine whether sex differences in interest and willingness to participate in exercise research exist."
The authors data measures XX/XY "interest in learning of 16 different health and fitness attributes."
Exercise, health, and fitness participation is clearly a separate category than sports participation. Of course there is overlap but your data set is at best tangental to the authors field of inquiry.
“The common expectation that the distribution of male and female research participants should invariably reflect a 50/50 ratio, and that any deviation in representation must be attributed to investigator bias, is logically flawed. A variety of factors, aside from investigator bias, may contribute to a greater representation of men—or women—in such research. For instance, both the interest and willingness of individuals to participate in research may be significant factors”
I assume they wished to demonstrate a logical flaw.
The logical flaw is to assume the natural distribution of men and women in sports is 50:50 and anything otherwise is bias. No research is required because unless you control for natural distribution, which they didn’t, then any conclusions are spurious as to differential “bias”.
The major finding of their report, ignoring the lack of effort to control for difference in presence of men and women at different sports and exercise levels, was that men and women are interested in different types of exercise.
That’s called a trivial finding, like discovering that people find jokes in their native language funnier than an acquired language, or that there less research in sports medicine and exercise for quadriplegics than for able-bodied people.
The willingness to participate in exercise and sports studies I found entirely unconvincing. A majority of the participants didn’t participate in sports, so why would they bother with sports studies? More men than women would agree to participate, but more men than women were in advanced sports. Who knows - maybe they were all the same people?
I was just mystified.
The major interesting part of supplementary information was that they precisely reproduced the observed differential prevalence of men and women in sports in their random sample, without remark.
Your statistical critique examines apples (sports participation rates) while the authors statistical analysis examined oranges (exercise, health and fitness survey participation rates).
It is a fundamental logical fallacy that is often repeated but remains unacknowledged in your argument and completely undermines any illusion of epistemological rigor.
Women earn 60% of college degrees.
Women's labor force participation hits record high: https://www.axios.com/2023/07/10/womens-labor-force-participation-hits-record-high
Reports of bias against women are generally bunk.