LGBTQ+

3056 readers

373 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

CA Gov Gavin Newsom "Completely Aligns" With Charlie Kirk On Trans Issues In Podcast (www.erininthemorning.com)

submitted 2 days ago by return2ozma to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kreskin -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

OK, but can you please tell me why its "shit"?

is it that you think its incorrect? I see stuff like this NIH study below specifically about atheletic performance in a transgender population at time of transition and after a period of performance change and it doesnt match whats presented in the links people replied with-- but heres the problem, I trust the NIH study more than I trust the arguments given in such a vehement and angry way in the other links. I have no real skin in this game. I beleive everyone has soveriegnty over their own body and if it doesn't very explicitely hurt me or another person, I say live your best life.

"post gender affirming hormone therapy, trans women still surpassed cis women for their 1.5 mile run time (765 ± 39.83 s. vs. 855 ± 40.56 s.), but performed significantly slower than cis men (720 ± 40.56 s.) unlike their pre hormone therapy assessment"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

So why is this study wrong? thats a 90 second on average run advantage on a 1.5 mile course. In sports thats a lot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

If you read past those numbers, you see that a followup study following participants for 4 years saw:

Using these approaches, the researchers showed that trans women performance on the 1.5 mile run was not statistically different from cis women times following two years of gender affirming hormone therapy and remained equivalent to cis women out to year four (874 ± 133 s vs. 876 ± 111 s.)

Also keep in mind that this is selecting for people already in athletics, so there's a selection bias there. Potentially only the better trans women remain in sports, skewing the results (not saying that is the case, but that it's hard to say for certain what the data means). Also also the sample size is 46 trans women, which shrinks in the followup study as participants dropped out over time, so that's a pretty small sample size to base any serious claims on.

Reading on even further, another cited study showed trans women performing worse the cis women. Ultimately, I think these numbers are not useful for you and I because the uncertainty is too large.

The meta study you cite even has a section (5) explaining that this is not a great reason to ban trans people:

However, if these average differences lead to inequity or injury, restricting trans individuals from these sports and athletics may not be the best solution. [...] However, when looking at a sample distribution of players, >300 males sampled fall below the 2nd percentile of average male body mass and >300 females sampled are above the 98th percentile of average female body mass. If being too large or too small were a critical concern for rugby injuries, more injuries may be prevented by restricting those >600 players who fell far outside the average player mass than banning trans athletes.

All this also ignores that if it were a real problem, surely trans people would be dominating sports, yet they're not. Trans people have been allowed to compete in the Olympics for a while, and I can't name a single trans medalist.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

If you believe the study is correct, could you summarize its conclusion for me?