Could you provide the studies this article cites?
Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage
Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations should consider this evidence when reassessing current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.
Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage
Further studies cited in text you can follow up via the references at the end.
Still insist there is no benefit and transwomen are actually disadvantaged?
Of course. But, as I made clear my first post, sports have always been divided up into different groups and classes, and biological advantages are taken into account when determining which ones individuals fall into.
If you would like to see what a sports scientist and injury consultant to the governing body, World rugby says on the safety of this:
The premise of the model is evidence-based: Injury & performance are the DIRECT result of variables A, B & C. Thus, if you take A, B & C, and find:
a) They’re significantly higher in M than F;
b) Reducing T does not reduce A, B and C to female levels;
what can you conclude?
The ONLY conclusion you can draw is that injury risk & performance will remain significantly elevated. To argue anything other than this means you have to redefine injury and negate variables that are KNOWN to significantly elevate performance. It’s impossible.
'That's ideology, not science' - Renowned sports scientist steps in on transwomen in rugby debate
What I am against is the narrative that implies allowing trans people to compete in the sport of their gender will significantly disadvantage others, or will "destroy" womens sports. The implication being that trans female athletes are really just "men pretending to be women so that they can beat them at sports". This is the implication of the arguments you are making, whether you intend for it to be or not.
No it is not the implication (see above), don't be daft.
The mind-reading self-righteous bigoteer, always a pleasure to engage with
That says basically nothing of value. It is relatively old and notes one small study which is inconclusive but shows transwomen retain greater muscle mass.
Gooren and Bunck concluded that transgender male individuals are likely to be able to compete without an athletic advantage 1-year post-cross-sex hormone treatment. To a certain extent this also applies to transgender female individuals; however, there still remains a level of uncertainty owing to a large muscle mass 1-year post-cross-sex hormones.
If scientific studies showed transwomen retain a significant advantage (as they do), would that make any difference to your argument?
Pointing to outliers is not indicative of overall trends. Outliers exist in sport. It happens all the time.
What you mean is you don't understand evidence in this case. You are trying to use similar reasoning by saying 'but transwomen don't dominate the Olympics', but you misunderstand what is shown by this.
Outliers are people who show natural gifts athletically which tend to show themselves throughout someone's lifetime.
Magical transformations in mid-late career are not 'outliers' but almost always evidence of artificial advantage (usually PED use).
If someone transitions and then suddenly becomes a world-class athlete, this is very strong evidence they benefited from the transition, the same as Lance Armstrong's magical performance leap was obviously the result of PED use (in real time, not with the benefit of hindsight)
This is not a reasonable argument. "I assume x, and will continue to assume x until evidence against x is presented" is not logic. You need to actually demonstrate that these individuals outcomes are a direct consequence of an unfair advantage over their fellow competitors. It is not enough to merely go "they weren't doing great and now they are doing better".
Again you fail to understand.
It's the same logic as why 'rational' people were telling everyone not to wear masks a year ago: "there is no evidence masks work!" simply because people don't understand evidence or probability.
When you have a situation that is hard to replicate in real life, look at the existing evidence rather than assuming we know nothing until the perfect study exists (reminder, existing studies also tend to show performance advantages)
High level athletes are not normal, studying the average person doesn't work as people don't respond in the same way to treatments and the average person doesn't push the limits of human performance.
Here is a study showing EPO doesn't work, which you would have to be
astoundingly dumb to believe on balance of evidence (i.e. the obvious athletic performance jump in the EPO era which declined on EPO testing being introduced, along with the fact that athletes measuring every ounce of performance were certain it was impossible to win without EPO). None of this was in a scientific journal, but as evidence it's a hell of a lot more reliable than a 'scientific' study showing EPO doesn't work.
Lance Armstrong's drug of choice, EPO, 'doesn't work', scientists claim
In the first study of its kind, scientists challenged a group of 48 cyclists to tackle a series of challenges, including the infamous Mont Ventoux ascent, which often forms part of the Tour.
Half had been given eight weekly injections of EPO, a drug that promotes red blood cell production with the aim of increasing delivery of oxygen to the muscles, while the other half took a dummy.
But after the gruelling 21.5km climb - which was preceded by a 110km cycle for good measure - the average results of the two groups showed no difference whatsoever.
The scientists behind the trial, which is published in the Lancet, say athletes are “naive” about the benefits of illicit substances such as EPO, but that myths about their effectiveness go unchallenged in the murky world of doping.
Lance Armstrong's drug of choice, EPO, 'doesn't work', scientists claim
Study:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/fulltext
People made similar arguments for 10 years about Lance Armstrong 'where is the evidence he is doping?' (the fact that he had a magical transformation, mid-career post-cancer and dominated a notoriously dirty sport which made it basically impossible for him to be clean).
Useful idiots championed his cause for a decade before the obvious was proven.
I've already shown evidence of is non-elite male athletes becoming elite female athletes post transition. You chose to ignore it.
Feel free to provide a reasoned explanation for this phenomenon that takes into account magical performance increases late career.
Facts, please. And, again, why is the danger of the sport relevant? You wouldn't bring up the danger of, say, a 150 pound MMA fighter going up against a 160 pound MMA fighter if both fighters were trans women. Why does it suddenly matter to you only when one of them used to have a penis?
Mind-reading bigoteering again, both times completely wrongly. Strange how people can't discuss this issue rationally...
Why is the danger of the sport (including for youth sport) relevant?
I think you are smart and compassionate enough to work that one out for yourself.
So, tell me, if trans athletes consistently retain a biological advantage over cis gendered counterparts, why do trans Olympians perform consistently worse than their cis gendered counterparts?
Because they were much worse athletes to start with obviously
The number of people who transition is so small, how many of them were world class boys/male athletes prior to transition and competing as a female.
According to your logic, you would have to be a top 5 male athlete to be a top 10 female athlete post transition. Where is your evidence that these demonstrably elite athletes became
worse after transitioning, rather than non-elite athletes became better?
The balance of scientific evidence shows performance advantage. The real-world performance evidence shows performance advantage.
If you prefer ideology to evidence, that's your choice.
