"Trans women have no advantage in women's sports, studies confirm this result"

[librarysquirrel@sunny.garden]

@hrefna I didn't see the studies themselves, but they were also big enough, most probably. Non-researchers seem to tend to way overestimate the importance of sample size or participant number whatever the constraints of the topic at hand. A bigger # doesn't mean a more conclusive result, it's merely a lesser detail of research design.

[thairanaru@bookstodon.com]

@hrefna i was arguing with a guy year a go
these type of people are happy to "debunk" studies but they never offer counter-evidence themselves

[ferrix@mastodon.online]

@hrefna they imagine science a lot like they imagine god: as a nebulous entity composed of their own intuitions and biases, wielded to aid and comfort a desired outcome

[hrefna@hachyderm.io]

@cambria Yep. It also reminds me of the various men who have thought they could beat a woman who is a professional MMA fighter.

Every time that has been challenged it has gone very, very badly for them.

[deelux_fiat@todon.nl]

@hrefna Bigots choose to be ignorant.

[diffrentcolours@tech.lgbt]

@hrefna In the UK the transphobes succeeded with "stop giving puberty blockers to trans kids (but not cis kids) because there isn't enough evidence that there aren't side-effects!"

Now they're doing "stop controlled trials of puberty blockers to trans kids which might generate that evidence!"

They don't care about science, they just want to hate and harm.

[deusfigendi@troet.cafe]

@hrefna

I am no native speaker, one can use "tool" as an insult?

[hrefna@hachyderm.io]

@Romankalisz My testosterone levels are lower than the vast majority of cis women, and that's _extremely standard_ among women who have been on hormone therapy as long as is required to compete. Inclusive of those on monotherapy.

Meanwhile, many cis women have _significantly_ higher testosterone, and bans based on testosterone levels are _extremely_ limited (per the IOC: "However, the limitations of testosterone-based eligibility criteria are widely recognised in the sports science community. In addition to testosterone levels varying across individuals")

If you want to justify transphobia then you should start by doing literally one google search on the topic.

[hrefna@hachyderm.io]

@deusfigendi Yep! Or more precisely in a derogatory way.

Definition (3) at Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

a. "one who is used or manipulated by another"
b. "a foolish or unlikable person"

[deusfigendi@troet.cafe]

@hrefna
Thank you ️

[hrefna@hachyderm.io]

@Romankalisz You raised an irrelevant and flat wrong point as a justification for keeping trans women out of sports. Specifically a justification that you have clearly done zero research on or you would have already known that:

1. Testosterone-based limits are widely shunned in sports science.
2. Trans women's testosterone levels are in the cis women range, and often on the _low_ end of that range.
3. The IOC _used_ to have those standards but because of (1) decided to get rid of them and allow them to be decided by sport.

So to the degree (1) is even false and (2) may not apply, there were _already limits in place_ that they decided weren't useful because of (1), and they allowed individual sports to set their own limits if they could figure out how it was useful. That limit, incidentally, was around 288 ng/dL. For reference, my current levels are 15 ng/dL, which is about standard for most trans women on ≥ 2 years on hrt.

In short: you are bringing up irrelevant facts in the name of "equality" when even if (1) weren't true (2) would still be an issue. If (1) and (2) are not at issue then (3) would still show you have no idea what you are talking about. You are doing this without doing literally any research yourself.

The most charitable interpretation I can see is that you are putting the burden of educating you on random trans women on the internet by calling for exclusion based on irrelevant criteria. Itself a form of transphobia and mansplaining.

That's at absolute best and that's _if_ you are doing this in good faith.

[hrefna@hachyderm.io]

@Romankalisz Ah yes. Maybe if I were just _nicer_ to transphobes they would be less transphobic. That's definitely a well established method that has always worked with oppressors both historically and in the modern times.

You are transphobic and you have been behaving in a transphobic manner. It has nothing to do with whether you agree with me. It is because your argument is a transphobic argument and your presentation treats the trans woman you are talking to as lesser. Full stop.

I also do. not. care. what you, a random man on the internet, feel is good for "my cause." At all. Ever.

You might consider reading any of:

* Feminism is for Everybody (bell hooks)
* Men Explain Things to Me (Solnit)
* Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny (Manne)

If you want more of a focus on transphobia, you can start with:

* The Transgender Issue: An Argument for Justice (Faye)
* Whipping Girl (Serano)

I'm only continuing to engage here because I'm putting off dealing with chickens. So: Consider this your free lesson in proper social etiquette in online interactions.

Strike 2.

[purplerabbit@goo.dgirl.gay]

@hrefna the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd when facts don't care about their feelings.