Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

The International Swimming Federation (FINA), are also looking at banning anyone like Michael Phelps from international competition.

How is that far?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Stunningly incisive, erudite and profound assessment of contempory scientific methods and their antecedents.

Monkers, give up. This person really knows their shït.

Another individual who knows the science better than the UK's major sporting bodies, or indeed 38 other sports scientists who have spoke out on one occasion alone:

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1117938/ioc-transgender-framework-criticised

Meanwhile, shonky science continues as activists under the guise of researchers desperately try to prove there is no retained male advantage.

Transwoman researcher Joanna Harper's latest research:

https://www.westernstandard.news/ne...cle_387dc2e0-a3cd-11ed-ad3c-1344c5dae9d4.html

So that's an IOC funded study of 4 transwomen cyclists recording their speed, power etc over time whilst on hrt, in which 3 have dropped out, and the one left is Emily Bridges - and of course the incentive is for Bridges to not try quite as hard and go progressively slower until they are at the same level as women. Conclusion: no advantage.

IOC funded research based on one single individual who has an incentive to produce a particular outcome.

Anybody can see that that is poor quality research that shouldn't be used to inform decisions that affect hundreds of women athletes.

 

[monkers]

It’s a satire joke you monkey.

You can never be sure in this place.

 

[monkers]

Another individual who knows the science better than the UK's major sporting bodies, or indeed 38 other sports scientists who have spoke out on one occasion alone:

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1117938/ioc-transgender-framework-criticised

Meanwhile, shonky science continues as activists under the guise of researchers desperately try to prove there is no retained male advantage.

Transwoman researcher Joanna Harper's latest research:

https://www.westernstandard.news/ne...cle_387dc2e0-a3cd-11ed-ad3c-1344c5dae9d4.html

So that's an IOC funded study of 4 transwomen cyclists recording their speed, power etc over time whilst on hrt, in which 3 have dropped out, and the one left is Emily Bridges - and of course the incentive is for Bridges to not try quite as hard and go progressively slower until they are at the same level as women. Conclusion: no advantage.

IOC funded research based on one single individual who has an incentive to produce a particular outcome.

Anybody can see that that is poor quality research that shouldn't be used to inform decisions that affect hundreds of women athletes.

If the IOC study used 'shonky science' are you still welcoming their latest decision? Tell me your not.

You continue to use 'shonky' evidence. You made two links, one doesn't open, the other one just links to a picture of Emily Bridges. Do you think that is presenting persuasive evidence of anything at all? Really if your viewpoint is supported by this level of evidence and you think it compelling, then you have no argument.

 

[icowden]

You made two links, one doesn't open, the other one just links to a picture of Emily Bridges.

It might be an issue with your browser - they both open for me.

Do you think that is presenting persuasive evidence of anything at all? Really if your viewpoint is supported by this level of evidence and you think it compelling, then you have no argument.

The position paper is that the IOC's framework is based on human rights and not science, which is clearly absurd, and they point out that the framework is weak in both directions in that it could exclude both transwomen and DSD athletes or conversely allow anyone to participate in women's sport as long as they self-identify. It isn't a scientific paper though, just presented by scientists and experts.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If the IOC study used 'shonky science' are you still welcoming their latest decision? Tell me your not.

You continue to use 'shonky' evidence. You made two links, one doesn't open, the other one just links to a picture of Emily Bridges. Do you think that is presenting persuasive evidence of anything at all? Really if your viewpoint is supported by this level of evidence and you think it compelling, then you have no argument.

I welcome decisions informed by good quality, peer reviewed scientific data. As more genuine and rigorous data comes in, sports will decide accordingly. Except for those who have decided to prioritise inclusivity over fairness. Like you, they will ignore the science because their position is ideological.

It's your browser. The links works for others. I think 'The links won't open on my phone so there's no evidence whatsoever' is hardly a compelling argument either.

Different link to the Bridges study:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/three-of-four-transwomen-athletes-drop-out-of-ioc-study-nrh2hpx8m

Except from article on experts letter to IOC:

 

[monkers]

It might be an issue with your browser - they both open for me.


The position paper is that the IOC's framework is based on human rights and not science, which is clearly absurd, and they point out that the framework is weak in both directions in that it could exclude both transwomen and DSD athletes or conversely allow anyone to participate in women's sport as long as they self-identify. It isn't a scientific paper though, just presented by scientists and experts.

I just get the wheel of procrastination for the first one, then it times out. The second one is just a picture of Emily Bridges with no additional information. I'm using Google Chrome. I'm not having a general problem opening links.

The IOC should be considering credible science and human rights. The problem for the IOC and other organisation is that the science is far from settled. Despite the title of the document Universal Declaration of Human Rights, rights are not universal. The UN has its HQ in New York. The working party to thrash out the rights was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, but America has not signed all of the declaration. This is because it has conflicts with the American Constitution which for some at least remains sacrosanct.

With so many fixed positions, decisions for global matters never get decided.

When the same analysis is applied to the climate emergency, we can only predict human extinction within a century or so. But hey let's debate trans people and the right to be themselves instead. Even the Green Party England & Wales is doing it. We're sunk.

 

[Cirrus]

I just get the wheel of procrastination for the first one, then it times out. The second one is just a picture of Emily Bridges with no additional information. I'm using Google Chrome. I'm not having a general problem opening links.

Both links open fine for me in chrome and firefox.

 

[monkers]

Both links open fine for me in chrome and firefox.

Thanks I'll try again soon.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The IOC should be considering credible science and human rights. The problem for the IOC and other organisation is that the science is far from settled.

The right to fairness is as much a right as the right to compete. Not that transwomen can't compete anyway; they are just being asked to compete in the appropriate category. The science is increasingly looking settled, which is why sports are finally acting.

When the same analysis is applied to the climate emergency, we can only predict human extinction within a century or so. But hey let's debate trans people and the right to be themselves instead. Even the Green Party England & Wales is doing it. We're sunk.

Perfectly possible to deal with more than one thing at a time. This idea that women can't address unfairness in their sports until we've stopped global warming/ended poverty/fed the world is very odd.

 

[monkers]

The right to fairness is as much a right as the right to compete. Not that transwomen can't compete anyway; they are just being asked to compete in the appropriate category. The science is increasingly looking settled, which is why sports are finally acting.



Perfectly possible to deal with more than one thing at a time. This idea that women can't address unfairness in their sports until we've stopped global warming/ended poverty/fed the world is very odd.

I should have known this was too difficult for you. My point is that the world needs a universal approach to solve so many of its problems. This is what the world needs to get done first. Global solution to many things would be come easier. So entrenched are prejudices thought that it will never happen.

When you listen to the reasons that some people give for their vote after and elections, you begin to realise the problem - some people are increasingly using their vote not to support their own rights, but to ensure the denial of rights of others. That's the result of the style of electioneering that we are seeing.

 

[multitool]

This makes me laugh so hard.

"Gender ideology"

What gender ideology is that? Is it the one that determines what clothes people should wear based on their genitalia? Is it the ideology that would cause new parents to lose their shït if you gave their newborn baby boy a nice little frilly pink dress? Is it the gender ideology that for centuries has determined how people should behave and speak based on their genitalia? ? The one where men should be tough and women soft and caring? The one where job suitability is based on your genitalia? The one where for most of my lifetime access to sports was based on your genitals?

Lol. 'Gender ideology'.

And that is even before we get to the sheer ignorance of the article itself.

 

[icowden]

What gender ideology is that?

Um... I think it's in the very first paragraph

"Gender identity theory".

 

[multitool]

Um... I think it's in the very first paragraph

"Gender identity theory".

Whoosh

 

[bobzmyunkle]

This makes me laugh so hard.

The Tool gets to the local shop and discovers the Dail Mail. Hey Tool, great effort old chum. Maybe try round the block tomorrow - fresh air and a little light exercise can work wonders for a chap.