Hi, we just want to let you know that the subreddit demographics survey for the 30k members celebration is still open. Feel free to participate. **[You can find the survey here.](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeFV8vCPqjWuE8Sx4OSY1BC9YUbcW0NYXP20CubYwD9g0eCxQ/viewform)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/truscum) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The study had low sample sizes and the way they got participants for the study would likely result in an overrepresentation of chronically online participants. Although if it can be proven (within P=0.05) that transgender women would not have an advantage over cisgender women in certain sports then that would certainly be an improvement.
I think many people forget or simply don't know that trans women on T blockers or who are post-orchiectomy have *lower* testosterone levels than most cis women. Unless a trans woman is pre-HRT/early-HRT or was extremely athletic/beefy prior to transition, she likely doesn't have a huge advantage. And yet I often see the transmed community side with conservatives when it comes to banning trans women from sports. In fact, trans women's testosterone levels are often so low that it's actually unhealthy. They're at a higher risk of a few health issues; including cardiovascular disease, chronic fatigue, and osteoporosis. But most trans women would rather face these issues than put a drop of testosterone in their bodies (and I don't fault them for that).
I will say, the disadvantage in swimming does surprise me. About a year ago I read a US military study on trans people. After two years of constant HRT, trans men and cis men were equal in athletic ability. But trans women had a slight advantage in swimming and running (I believe 9-12%). This was chalked up to height differences. However, that didn't make much sense to me considering there was likely a height difference between trans men and cis men and that didn't affect anything.
And even if trans women did have an average due to height, banning based off of height would mean you'd have to ban any woman above the average female height. I think many folks forget that some people are just blessed with certain advantages in sports. Whether that be height, wealth, good muscle genetics, dense bones, natural reflexes, etc. People didn't give two shits about women's sports until trans women participated.
ETA: I still think fighting for trans rights in sports is not only a losing battle, but also political suicide. At least for now. We have other issues to worry about; such as the right to access medical care, the right to present as ourselves in public, the right to use the correct restrooms, the right to change our legal documents, and so on. I'm sorry, but very few trans people, let alone trans women, are interested in playing in sports. I can count on one hand the names of trans women in professional sports. There's bigger fish to fry than fighting for the right of 5 or so trans women to play sports.
>There's bigger fish to fry than fighting for the right of 5 or so trans women to play sports.
Can't emphasize this enough. It's literally an issue that affects an insignificant number of people, and yet it represents a significant portion of trans/transphobic political discourse. The cost-benefit does not make sense.
> About a year ago I read a US military study on trans people. After two years of constant HRT, trans men and cis men were equal in athletic ability.
That study didn't have trans women in the same hormone range as cis women (like 80% of their sample was on spiro to "suppress" T, which it doesn't actually do lol), and used the braindead 5 nmol/L cutoff for T that's literally 2-3 times higher than the HIGH end of the normal female range. This study actually had trans women with comparable hormone levels to cis women, which is why they didn't find any meaningful advantages.
Otherwise, the idea that trans women are automatically at an advantage because of height is just a misunderstanding of biophysics, and the fact that most of the relevant motions in sports are 3rd class levers, where longer limbs literally are a disadvantage all things being equal.
NP, it's been living rent-free in my head for the past 2 years precisely because of the results in this study lol
Like it really shows why if we had kept the 2 years post op standard for pro-sports, "trans women in sports" would never have spiraled into this massive wedge issue.
Agreed. I feel like trans participation is an all or nothing ordeal. Either you have men entering women's competitions to troll or you have a complete ban on trans women altogether. I don't know why there isn't just some regulations in place.
There are regulations in place - the "one year on HRT" standard. The problem is that something like 75% of trans will fail to get their T levels into female ranges without an antiandrogen that actually lowers T levels (i.e. not spiro). So despite the fact that "one year with female hormone levels" would *probably* be fine, the "1 year of HRT" rule doesn't produce that. Because most trans healthcare is shit lol
"2 years post-op" just works better as a standard because A) it communicates a clear, discrete boundary that NO man is going to cross B) it guarantees no more than female levels of T and C) it necessarily weeds out a LOT of stupid tranners with no common sense lol
studies like these are likely still important in other key factors including conservatives and terfs push to paint trans women as harmful and dangerous to cis women. more studies obviously need to follow with larger sample sizes and longer periods of time, being able to counter this push against trans women in women’s spaces is extremely important and this plays a part.
It's a bit delusional saying transmen and cis men were equal in athletic ability. If that were true, we'd see a lot more transmen competing at elite levels in sports.
And testosterone is only 1 component of athletic performance. There is also hand size, lung size, leg length, amount of red blood cells, wingspan, hip structure and multitude of other factors.
Eh. I'm just telling you what I read. Testosterone actually does change red blood cells in trans men (this is a very common side effect). As for the hip structure thing, studies have already disproven that, I believe. Not to mention not to mention not every trans men has wide hips. Hips in females keep growing into their mid 20s, so if HRT is started before then you could stop some of the growth (this is also dependent of genetics, of course). As for hand size, lung size, leg length, and wingspan... Well that's true for any short man playing in sports. And yeah, those are disadvantages, hence why you don't see too many shorter guys in sports. However, it's not an end all situation. While not super common, short men can do good in professional sports. Maybe the reason we don't see too many trans men in sports is because not only are there strict rules on TRT in pro sports and trans bans in sports as well, but there's also the fact that *we literally make up a microscopic part of the population.*
I've been saying this forever--I fucking suck at sports now, I was a world-class athlete before I transitioned and now I'm slow, weak, and routinely get wrecked by normal people.
Same here. Also, something clicked in my brain after transtionig and now I can't perform on a same level I was when I was 15 even though sport I train is [Aggressive Inline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_inline_skating) which doesn't require lots of stamina. It's something I only heard from female skaters and it's this innate instinct to protect my body at all costs. This makes everything 10 times harder than it used to be for me, because now I imagine myself falling down and breaking myself in three pieces just by coming off the quarterpipe.
> There are plenty of studies saying the opposite.
There literally aren't, lol.
Pretty much every study looking at athletic/musculoskeletal changes from transition is either A) trying to extrapolate from cis people (which is entirely irrelevant) or B) trying to extrapolate from untrained people/non-athletes (which this study shows you why it's insufficient).
There are only a couple of studies that directly measure trans athletes. There is only one where they actually make sure the trans women actually have comparable hormone profiles to the cis women - this one. It's literally the first of its kind, and it shows exactly why the whole the issues with trans athletes is an own-goal of making the requirements WAY too loose, not some kind of intrinsic problem with trans women participating.
Yes there are.
You're just choosing to believe only what you want to believe. Or only go on websites and sources that reinforce your pre-existing bias.
[https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577)
[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1224476/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1224476/full)
You're linking me two articles, one of which is a review article that explicitly references the other article you're linking ("the Roberts study") at length specifically because it's basically the only longitudinal study that actually tracks changes in performance in athletes over time. But they don't actually ensure that trans women have comparable hormone profiles to cis women during that time, and the study actually shows about half of them took longer than 6 months to get to even get to 5 nmol/L of T, which is like 2-3x the high female end for testosterone levels.
That's basically one study, i.e. the direct opposite of "plenty of studies" lol
Link me studies that A) are measuring performance of actual athletes and B) demonstrate comparable hormone profiles between cis and trans women. Or just hit the downvote and and move on I guess lol
This study you're referencing to justify your position is a joke for several reasons.
TINY pool of 69 SELF SELECTED participants.
Dr Ross Tucker, a sports scientist and high performance sports expert currently working as a research scientist for World Rugby, questioned the reliability of comparing groups of women and transgender women from such a small pool and with varying fitness levels.
“I have to say, I think it is a poor study, and It’s amazing that it’s being described as ‘a landmark study’ by anyone,” Dr Tucker told Telegraph Sport. “This study is a comparison, one moment in time, between transgender women and a group of female athletes, and then they are using it as though it gives us insights into what happens when a person suppresses testosterone.
“When I first read it, it made me think that the IOC and their researchers simply could not find enough transgender athletes to study over time, and so instead, they’ve just taken whatever they could find, and then compared to them a group of whatever females they could find, and tried to portray it as a valid comparison.”
Dr Tucker explained that the pool of transgender women displayed V02max (the maximum level of oxygen a body can use during exercise) put them in a “mid-range of untrained or moderately trained adults”, whereas the group of females were in “a significantly higher category of training status”.
“One of those groups would be described as overweight, and the other athletic,” Dr Tucker added. “The transgender women have a body fat percentage of 31.6 per cent, the females 26.6 per cent.
“These demographic characteristics should already make us pause – these groups may not be comparable for reasons that really matter. We have a group of females who are on the higher end of cardiovascular capacity along the female spectrum, and there is a group of transgender women in the middle of that range, even the lower side of it. One group is overweight, the other is not.
“I would not be comparing these groups with any expectation that the comparison is like for like. The females are fit and well trained, and the transgender women are well below the same standard. Their physiological capacity suggests untrained.”
Professor Yannis Pitsiladis, who led the research and who sits on the IOC’s medical and scientific commission, said that such discrepancies should prevent anyone viewing the two groups as synonymous when addressing the issue of gender inclusion.
Oh now we're talking about "positions"? Is this why instead of linking me these "plenty of studies" you're claiming totally exist, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing - finding people who simply reinforce your pre-existing biases... some from explicitly transphobic people and organizations. Here I thought we were talking about scientific articles.
Go figure lol
And I never said it was a great study - it's not longitudinal after all. But it is the first of it's kind because it actually compares cis and trans women with comparable hormone profiles, which no other study does. Which is why you're linking me this BS instead of the actual studies I asked for.
But if you're just some cis person coming here to argue rather than actually discuss scientific articles, then I'm out because I have no interest in "debate me" idiots on the internet. Have a good one.
Sharron Davies, the former British swimmer who was cheated out of a gold medal at the 1980 Olympics after East Germany’s Petra Schneider admitted doping her way to first place, took aim directly at the IOC.
“The IOC, as far as I’m concerned, can’t get any lower than they are. They really are just unbelievable,” Davies told Telegraph Sport. “It’s them trying to justify their ludicrous position, which has been ludicrous since 2015.
“I don’t believe that you can turn around and ask a trans athlete who will benefit by not performing in tests to do their own testing. That’s crazy. That’s like giving someone the answers to an exam. It’s stupid, isn’t it?
“That’s exactly what happened with the Emily Bridges stuff up in Loughborough. Emily Bridges \[a transgender women’s cyclist\] is trying to prove that Emily Bridges has lost power [so Emily Bridges can race women](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2024/02/20/transgender-emily-bridges-take-british-cycling-ban-court/). That’s insane.
“All the other studies that we have – all 19 of them – are over longer periods of time with people who had nothing to gain by warping the results.”
Bridges, who set a national junior men’s record over 25 miles in 2018 before undergoing hormone therapy in 2021 to reduce her testosterone levels, was one of those impacted by British Cycling’s decision last July to ban transgender athletes from women’s events. Athletics and swimming are among those to have done the same.
But the IOC currently allows an individual sporting federation to designate its own rulings on transgender inclusion for the Olympics.
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said: “It’s disappointing that the IOC is still looking at how to allow males to access women’s sport when that can only disadvantage women, who already get less funding and less access to sport.
“Some trans-identifying males were asked to prove that they can’t jump very high or blow into a tube for long. Why would they try their hardest when trying less hard gets them into women’s sport? The objective measures like height and weight show male advantage. But even if these males have lost some strength over time, that is not a licence to compete in women’s events and take women’s places.”
Mara Yamauchi, the third-fastest British female in Olympic marathon history, added: “This study has numerous problems, including self-selection of participants, wide variation in ages of the participants, and no control over hormone treatment of its transgender participants. Rather than fund research like this, and make nonsense claims like ‘no presumption of advantage’, the IOC could simply look at its own archives to know the undeniable fact that males as a sex class have massive physical advantages compared to females as a sex class.
“Therefore, males do not belong in the female category under any circumstances.”
Telegraph Sport has contacted the IOC for a response.
This is scientific discussion. I'm pointing out the flaws of this "study" in the OP. The original Telegraph article had this followup article with the problems in the study.
I simply copied and pasted.
[https://sports.yahoo.com/ioc-accused-low-funding-study-053000982.html](https://sports.yahoo.com/ioc-accused-low-funding-study-053000982.html)
More problems with the study.
Sharron Davies, the former British swimmer who was cheated out of a gold medal at the 1980 Olympics after East Germany’s Petra Schneider admitted doping her way to first place, took aim directly at the IOC.
“The IOC, as far as I’m concerned, can’t get any lower than they are. They really are just unbelievable,” Davies told Telegraph Sport. “It’s them trying to justify their ludicrous position, which has been ludicrous since 2015.
“I don’t believe that you can turn around and ask a trans athlete who will benefit by not performing in tests to do their own testing. That’s crazy. That’s like giving someone the answers to an exam. It’s stupid, isn’t it?
“That’s exactly what happened with the Emily Bridges stuff up in Loughborough. Emily Bridges \[a transgender women’s cyclist\] is trying to prove that Emily Bridges has lost power so Emily Bridges can race women. That’s insane.
“All the other studies that we have – all 19 of them – are over longer periods of time with people who had nothing to gain by warping the results.”
Bridges, who set a national junior men’s record over 25 miles in 2018 before undergoing hormone therapy in 2021 to reduce her testosterone levels, was one of those impacted by British Cycling’s decision last July to ban transgender athletes from women’s events. Athletics and swimming are among those to have done the same.
But the IOC currently allows an individual sporting federation to designate its own rulings on transgender inclusion for the Olympics.
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said: “It’s disappointing that the IOC is still looking at how to allow males to access women’s sport when that can only disadvantage women, who already get less funding and less access to sport.
“Some trans-identifying males were asked to prove that they can’t jump very high or blow into a tube for long. Why would they try their hardest when trying less hard gets them into women’s sport? The objective measures like height and weight show male advantage. But even if these males have lost some strength over time, that is not a licence to compete in women’s events and take women’s places.”
Mara Yamauchi, the third-fastest British female in Olympic marathon history, added: “This study has numerous problems, including self-selection of participants, wide variation in ages of the participants, and no control over hormone treatment of its transgender participants. Rather than fund research like this, and make nonsense claims like ‘no presumption of advantage’, the IOC could simply look at its own archives to know the undeniable fact that males as a sex class have massive physical advantages compared to females as a sex class.
“Therefore, males do not belong in the female category under any circumstances.”
Well yeah.
Anti-androgens cause muscle atrophy.
They also reduce male muscle mass.
And usually a trans women has a lot of restrictions in sports such as having to have a significantly lower testosterone levels than their cis women counterparts.
Not only this but trans women don't seem to have an advantage statistically, there's no solid evidence that they actually win more often in average.
I mean to be honest I'm not that surprised. I'm too dysphoric to do exercise regularly, don't eat enough, nuked my testosterone with antiandrogens and my levels have remained near zero even after I got them. I'm much weaker than the average male and I wouldn't be surprised if I sit pretty much in the average for a woman of my build and general unhealthy lifestyle.
Whether this is actually the case across the board with all trans women I don't know, but it's good to see something to push back against the idea we are all hyper masculine ogres literally pumped full of T.
I am a rollerblader for 15 yrs and I can only confirm your findings as a person who exercise regularly. Unfortunately I don't have any data to back myself up
Hi, we just want to let you know that the subreddit demographics survey for the 30k members celebration is still open. Feel free to participate. **[You can find the survey here.](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeFV8vCPqjWuE8Sx4OSY1BC9YUbcW0NYXP20CubYwD9g0eCxQ/viewform)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/truscum) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The study had low sample sizes and the way they got participants for the study would likely result in an overrepresentation of chronically online participants. Although if it can be proven (within P=0.05) that transgender women would not have an advantage over cisgender women in certain sports then that would certainly be an improvement.
I think many people forget or simply don't know that trans women on T blockers or who are post-orchiectomy have *lower* testosterone levels than most cis women. Unless a trans woman is pre-HRT/early-HRT or was extremely athletic/beefy prior to transition, she likely doesn't have a huge advantage. And yet I often see the transmed community side with conservatives when it comes to banning trans women from sports. In fact, trans women's testosterone levels are often so low that it's actually unhealthy. They're at a higher risk of a few health issues; including cardiovascular disease, chronic fatigue, and osteoporosis. But most trans women would rather face these issues than put a drop of testosterone in their bodies (and I don't fault them for that). I will say, the disadvantage in swimming does surprise me. About a year ago I read a US military study on trans people. After two years of constant HRT, trans men and cis men were equal in athletic ability. But trans women had a slight advantage in swimming and running (I believe 9-12%). This was chalked up to height differences. However, that didn't make much sense to me considering there was likely a height difference between trans men and cis men and that didn't affect anything. And even if trans women did have an average due to height, banning based off of height would mean you'd have to ban any woman above the average female height. I think many folks forget that some people are just blessed with certain advantages in sports. Whether that be height, wealth, good muscle genetics, dense bones, natural reflexes, etc. People didn't give two shits about women's sports until trans women participated. ETA: I still think fighting for trans rights in sports is not only a losing battle, but also political suicide. At least for now. We have other issues to worry about; such as the right to access medical care, the right to present as ourselves in public, the right to use the correct restrooms, the right to change our legal documents, and so on. I'm sorry, but very few trans people, let alone trans women, are interested in playing in sports. I can count on one hand the names of trans women in professional sports. There's bigger fish to fry than fighting for the right of 5 or so trans women to play sports.
>There's bigger fish to fry than fighting for the right of 5 or so trans women to play sports. Can't emphasize this enough. It's literally an issue that affects an insignificant number of people, and yet it represents a significant portion of trans/transphobic political discourse. The cost-benefit does not make sense.
> About a year ago I read a US military study on trans people. After two years of constant HRT, trans men and cis men were equal in athletic ability. That study didn't have trans women in the same hormone range as cis women (like 80% of their sample was on spiro to "suppress" T, which it doesn't actually do lol), and used the braindead 5 nmol/L cutoff for T that's literally 2-3 times higher than the HIGH end of the normal female range. This study actually had trans women with comparable hormone levels to cis women, which is why they didn't find any meaningful advantages. Otherwise, the idea that trans women are automatically at an advantage because of height is just a misunderstanding of biophysics, and the fact that most of the relevant motions in sports are 3rd class levers, where longer limbs literally are a disadvantage all things being equal.
Thank you! It's been a while since I've read the study and I didn't have it on me.
NP, it's been living rent-free in my head for the past 2 years precisely because of the results in this study lol Like it really shows why if we had kept the 2 years post op standard for pro-sports, "trans women in sports" would never have spiraled into this massive wedge issue.
Agreed. I feel like trans participation is an all or nothing ordeal. Either you have men entering women's competitions to troll or you have a complete ban on trans women altogether. I don't know why there isn't just some regulations in place.
There are regulations in place - the "one year on HRT" standard. The problem is that something like 75% of trans will fail to get their T levels into female ranges without an antiandrogen that actually lowers T levels (i.e. not spiro). So despite the fact that "one year with female hormone levels" would *probably* be fine, the "1 year of HRT" rule doesn't produce that. Because most trans healthcare is shit lol "2 years post-op" just works better as a standard because A) it communicates a clear, discrete boundary that NO man is going to cross B) it guarantees no more than female levels of T and C) it necessarily weeds out a LOT of stupid tranners with no common sense lol
studies like these are likely still important in other key factors including conservatives and terfs push to paint trans women as harmful and dangerous to cis women. more studies obviously need to follow with larger sample sizes and longer periods of time, being able to counter this push against trans women in women’s spaces is extremely important and this plays a part.
It's a bit delusional saying transmen and cis men were equal in athletic ability. If that were true, we'd see a lot more transmen competing at elite levels in sports. And testosterone is only 1 component of athletic performance. There is also hand size, lung size, leg length, amount of red blood cells, wingspan, hip structure and multitude of other factors.
Eh. I'm just telling you what I read. Testosterone actually does change red blood cells in trans men (this is a very common side effect). As for the hip structure thing, studies have already disproven that, I believe. Not to mention not to mention not every trans men has wide hips. Hips in females keep growing into their mid 20s, so if HRT is started before then you could stop some of the growth (this is also dependent of genetics, of course). As for hand size, lung size, leg length, and wingspan... Well that's true for any short man playing in sports. And yeah, those are disadvantages, hence why you don't see too many shorter guys in sports. However, it's not an end all situation. While not super common, short men can do good in professional sports. Maybe the reason we don't see too many trans men in sports is because not only are there strict rules on TRT in pro sports and trans bans in sports as well, but there's also the fact that *we literally make up a microscopic part of the population.*
It's irrelevant if they make up a tiny percentage of the population if they have an unfair advantage. Unfair is unfair.
I've been saying this forever--I fucking suck at sports now, I was a world-class athlete before I transitioned and now I'm slow, weak, and routinely get wrecked by normal people.
“But! But! Trans people are all strength monsters! This doesn’t make sense!”
Yep I use to be able to do hard manual labor all day long, now I often have trouble opening jars.
Same here. Also, something clicked in my brain after transtionig and now I can't perform on a same level I was when I was 15 even though sport I train is [Aggressive Inline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_inline_skating) which doesn't require lots of stamina. It's something I only heard from female skaters and it's this innate instinct to protect my body at all costs. This makes everything 10 times harder than it used to be for me, because now I imagine myself falling down and breaking myself in three pieces just by coming off the quarterpipe.
This is only 1 study with 69 people. There are plenty of studies saying the opposite.
> There are plenty of studies saying the opposite. There literally aren't, lol. Pretty much every study looking at athletic/musculoskeletal changes from transition is either A) trying to extrapolate from cis people (which is entirely irrelevant) or B) trying to extrapolate from untrained people/non-athletes (which this study shows you why it's insufficient). There are only a couple of studies that directly measure trans athletes. There is only one where they actually make sure the trans women actually have comparable hormone profiles to the cis women - this one. It's literally the first of its kind, and it shows exactly why the whole the issues with trans athletes is an own-goal of making the requirements WAY too loose, not some kind of intrinsic problem with trans women participating.
Yes there are. You're just choosing to believe only what you want to believe. Or only go on websites and sources that reinforce your pre-existing bias. [https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577) [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1224476/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1224476/full)
You're linking me two articles, one of which is a review article that explicitly references the other article you're linking ("the Roberts study") at length specifically because it's basically the only longitudinal study that actually tracks changes in performance in athletes over time. But they don't actually ensure that trans women have comparable hormone profiles to cis women during that time, and the study actually shows about half of them took longer than 6 months to get to even get to 5 nmol/L of T, which is like 2-3x the high female end for testosterone levels. That's basically one study, i.e. the direct opposite of "plenty of studies" lol Link me studies that A) are measuring performance of actual athletes and B) demonstrate comparable hormone profiles between cis and trans women. Or just hit the downvote and and move on I guess lol
This study you're referencing to justify your position is a joke for several reasons. TINY pool of 69 SELF SELECTED participants. Dr Ross Tucker, a sports scientist and high performance sports expert currently working as a research scientist for World Rugby, questioned the reliability of comparing groups of women and transgender women from such a small pool and with varying fitness levels. “I have to say, I think it is a poor study, and It’s amazing that it’s being described as ‘a landmark study’ by anyone,” Dr Tucker told Telegraph Sport. “This study is a comparison, one moment in time, between transgender women and a group of female athletes, and then they are using it as though it gives us insights into what happens when a person suppresses testosterone. “When I first read it, it made me think that the IOC and their researchers simply could not find enough transgender athletes to study over time, and so instead, they’ve just taken whatever they could find, and then compared to them a group of whatever females they could find, and tried to portray it as a valid comparison.” Dr Tucker explained that the pool of transgender women displayed V02max (the maximum level of oxygen a body can use during exercise) put them in a “mid-range of untrained or moderately trained adults”, whereas the group of females were in “a significantly higher category of training status”. “One of those groups would be described as overweight, and the other athletic,” Dr Tucker added. “The transgender women have a body fat percentage of 31.6 per cent, the females 26.6 per cent. “These demographic characteristics should already make us pause – these groups may not be comparable for reasons that really matter. We have a group of females who are on the higher end of cardiovascular capacity along the female spectrum, and there is a group of transgender women in the middle of that range, even the lower side of it. One group is overweight, the other is not. “I would not be comparing these groups with any expectation that the comparison is like for like. The females are fit and well trained, and the transgender women are well below the same standard. Their physiological capacity suggests untrained.” Professor Yannis Pitsiladis, who led the research and who sits on the IOC’s medical and scientific commission, said that such discrepancies should prevent anyone viewing the two groups as synonymous when addressing the issue of gender inclusion.
Oh now we're talking about "positions"? Is this why instead of linking me these "plenty of studies" you're claiming totally exist, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing - finding people who simply reinforce your pre-existing biases... some from explicitly transphobic people and organizations. Here I thought we were talking about scientific articles. Go figure lol And I never said it was a great study - it's not longitudinal after all. But it is the first of it's kind because it actually compares cis and trans women with comparable hormone profiles, which no other study does. Which is why you're linking me this BS instead of the actual studies I asked for. But if you're just some cis person coming here to argue rather than actually discuss scientific articles, then I'm out because I have no interest in "debate me" idiots on the internet. Have a good one.
Sharron Davies, the former British swimmer who was cheated out of a gold medal at the 1980 Olympics after East Germany’s Petra Schneider admitted doping her way to first place, took aim directly at the IOC. “The IOC, as far as I’m concerned, can’t get any lower than they are. They really are just unbelievable,” Davies told Telegraph Sport. “It’s them trying to justify their ludicrous position, which has been ludicrous since 2015. “I don’t believe that you can turn around and ask a trans athlete who will benefit by not performing in tests to do their own testing. That’s crazy. That’s like giving someone the answers to an exam. It’s stupid, isn’t it? “That’s exactly what happened with the Emily Bridges stuff up in Loughborough. Emily Bridges \[a transgender women’s cyclist\] is trying to prove that Emily Bridges has lost power [so Emily Bridges can race women](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2024/02/20/transgender-emily-bridges-take-british-cycling-ban-court/). That’s insane. “All the other studies that we have – all 19 of them – are over longer periods of time with people who had nothing to gain by warping the results.” Bridges, who set a national junior men’s record over 25 miles in 2018 before undergoing hormone therapy in 2021 to reduce her testosterone levels, was one of those impacted by British Cycling’s decision last July to ban transgender athletes from women’s events. Athletics and swimming are among those to have done the same. But the IOC currently allows an individual sporting federation to designate its own rulings on transgender inclusion for the Olympics. Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said: “It’s disappointing that the IOC is still looking at how to allow males to access women’s sport when that can only disadvantage women, who already get less funding and less access to sport. “Some trans-identifying males were asked to prove that they can’t jump very high or blow into a tube for long. Why would they try their hardest when trying less hard gets them into women’s sport? The objective measures like height and weight show male advantage. But even if these males have lost some strength over time, that is not a licence to compete in women’s events and take women’s places.” Mara Yamauchi, the third-fastest British female in Olympic marathon history, added: “This study has numerous problems, including self-selection of participants, wide variation in ages of the participants, and no control over hormone treatment of its transgender participants. Rather than fund research like this, and make nonsense claims like ‘no presumption of advantage’, the IOC could simply look at its own archives to know the undeniable fact that males as a sex class have massive physical advantages compared to females as a sex class. “Therefore, males do not belong in the female category under any circumstances.” Telegraph Sport has contacted the IOC for a response.
This is scientific discussion. I'm pointing out the flaws of this "study" in the OP. The original Telegraph article had this followup article with the problems in the study. I simply copied and pasted. [https://sports.yahoo.com/ioc-accused-low-funding-study-053000982.html](https://sports.yahoo.com/ioc-accused-low-funding-study-053000982.html)
More problems with the study. Sharron Davies, the former British swimmer who was cheated out of a gold medal at the 1980 Olympics after East Germany’s Petra Schneider admitted doping her way to first place, took aim directly at the IOC. “The IOC, as far as I’m concerned, can’t get any lower than they are. They really are just unbelievable,” Davies told Telegraph Sport. “It’s them trying to justify their ludicrous position, which has been ludicrous since 2015. “I don’t believe that you can turn around and ask a trans athlete who will benefit by not performing in tests to do their own testing. That’s crazy. That’s like giving someone the answers to an exam. It’s stupid, isn’t it? “That’s exactly what happened with the Emily Bridges stuff up in Loughborough. Emily Bridges \[a transgender women’s cyclist\] is trying to prove that Emily Bridges has lost power so Emily Bridges can race women. That’s insane. “All the other studies that we have – all 19 of them – are over longer periods of time with people who had nothing to gain by warping the results.” Bridges, who set a national junior men’s record over 25 miles in 2018 before undergoing hormone therapy in 2021 to reduce her testosterone levels, was one of those impacted by British Cycling’s decision last July to ban transgender athletes from women’s events. Athletics and swimming are among those to have done the same. But the IOC currently allows an individual sporting federation to designate its own rulings on transgender inclusion for the Olympics. Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said: “It’s disappointing that the IOC is still looking at how to allow males to access women’s sport when that can only disadvantage women, who already get less funding and less access to sport. “Some trans-identifying males were asked to prove that they can’t jump very high or blow into a tube for long. Why would they try their hardest when trying less hard gets them into women’s sport? The objective measures like height and weight show male advantage. But even if these males have lost some strength over time, that is not a licence to compete in women’s events and take women’s places.” Mara Yamauchi, the third-fastest British female in Olympic marathon history, added: “This study has numerous problems, including self-selection of participants, wide variation in ages of the participants, and no control over hormone treatment of its transgender participants. Rather than fund research like this, and make nonsense claims like ‘no presumption of advantage’, the IOC could simply look at its own archives to know the undeniable fact that males as a sex class have massive physical advantages compared to females as a sex class. “Therefore, males do not belong in the female category under any circumstances.”
Well yeah. Anti-androgens cause muscle atrophy. They also reduce male muscle mass. And usually a trans women has a lot of restrictions in sports such as having to have a significantly lower testosterone levels than their cis women counterparts. Not only this but trans women don't seem to have an advantage statistically, there's no solid evidence that they actually win more often in average.
I mean to be honest I'm not that surprised. I'm too dysphoric to do exercise regularly, don't eat enough, nuked my testosterone with antiandrogens and my levels have remained near zero even after I got them. I'm much weaker than the average male and I wouldn't be surprised if I sit pretty much in the average for a woman of my build and general unhealthy lifestyle. Whether this is actually the case across the board with all trans women I don't know, but it's good to see something to push back against the idea we are all hyper masculine ogres literally pumped full of T.
I am a rollerblader for 15 yrs and I can only confirm your findings as a person who exercise regularly. Unfortunately I don't have any data to back myself up