The proposition that men can compete fairly against women is so absurd it's not even wrong. While I admire and salute Gregory Brown for going to the trouble to debunk Nancy Armour, really, who could possibly believe her? To have men competing in women's events has never been anything other than an abuse of power: "We are doing this because we can, and you don't have the power to stop us." Well, now we do, and this reprehensible misogynist practice will fade away. Maybe we owe a debt to Imane Khelif, who isn't even trans. We certainly owe a debt to those poor women who went into the ring with him.
I am a statistician. In many studies, PIs call for "adjusted means" which statistically modify the outcome means for various things. These are usually done legitimately, but should be avoided anyway. For long-term understanding, unadjusted simple means are the best, because later studies may not have the values or variables to adjust in the same way.
Statistical slight-of-hand is so common in the trannie world. The study of Tordoff et al (2023) used a completely illegitimate approach to make obviously similar outcomes look different. They fiddled with the data extensively, but it was obvious to anyone NOT in the trannie glamour zone that this was a huge lie.
Haha, this trick by Armour is an old one, and it's still just as tired. It's analogous to:
Free Peoples of Middle-Earth: "At the last meeting, we decided that the Dark Lord of Barad-dur seems really bad, and we should oppose him..."
Mouth of Sauron: "Wait...*I* wasn't at that meeting! Shouldn't I get a say?"
I can just about guarantee that if you asked Armour for input from Emma Hilton, or Richard Dawkins, or Luana Maroja, or Jerry Coyne, all her concern about inclusion would crumble like Mount Doom after Gollum took the fire plunge.
(Sorry for all the Tolkien references; it's where my mind is today.)
The proposition that men can compete fairly against women is so absurd it's not even wrong. While I admire and salute Gregory Brown for going to the trouble to debunk Nancy Armour, really, who could possibly believe her? To have men competing in women's events has never been anything other than an abuse of power: "We are doing this because we can, and you don't have the power to stop us." Well, now we do, and this reprehensible misogynist practice will fade away. Maybe we owe a debt to Imane Khelif, who isn't even trans. We certainly owe a debt to those poor women who went into the ring with him.
I am a statistician. In many studies, PIs call for "adjusted means" which statistically modify the outcome means for various things. These are usually done legitimately, but should be avoided anyway. For long-term understanding, unadjusted simple means are the best, because later studies may not have the values or variables to adjust in the same way.
Statistical slight-of-hand is so common in the trannie world. The study of Tordoff et al (2023) used a completely illegitimate approach to make obviously similar outcomes look different. They fiddled with the data extensively, but it was obvious to anyone NOT in the trannie glamour zone that this was a huge lie.
Haha, this trick by Armour is an old one, and it's still just as tired. It's analogous to:
Free Peoples of Middle-Earth: "At the last meeting, we decided that the Dark Lord of Barad-dur seems really bad, and we should oppose him..."
Mouth of Sauron: "Wait...*I* wasn't at that meeting! Shouldn't I get a say?"
I can just about guarantee that if you asked Armour for input from Emma Hilton, or Richard Dawkins, or Luana Maroja, or Jerry Coyne, all her concern about inclusion would crumble like Mount Doom after Gollum took the fire plunge.
(Sorry for all the Tolkien references; it's where my mind is today.)
Really, the better references would be the murmurings of Wormtongue into the ear of the King.