Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

They're male, so perfect drop example

So teenage girls will never beat any old man like yourself in any sport? What excuse will you use when you invariably lose? Females are always better than males?

 

[AuroraSaab]

1,500 US men and boys beat Flo Jo's World Record every year.

We know men perform better than women in sports that require strength and speed. We need only compare records from the last 100 years to see this. Pretending that more research is needed is ridiculous.

Alison Felix's 400m personal best was beaten by 300 US High school boys in 2018 alone. It's hardly Usain Bolt being a one off phenonomen that accounts for him performing better.... it's being male that's the biggest help.

 

[monkers]

1,500 US men and boys beat Flo Jo's World Record every year.

We know men perform better than women in sports that require strength and speed. We need only compare records from the last 100 years to see this. Pretending that more research is needed is ridiculous.

Alison Felix's 400m personal best was beaten by 300 US High school boys in 2018 alone. It's hardly Usain Bolt being a one off phenonomen that accounts for him performing better.... it's being male that's the biggest help.

Aurora copies CXRAndy's confirmation bias but believes she'll get away with it because she's smarter. Wrong on both counts.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So teenage girls will never beat any old man like yourself in any sport? What excuse will you use when you invariably lose? Females are always better than males?

Yes, very athletic females, of any age, will beat less athletic, less skilled males. But in a like for like comparison, they invariably don't. We know this because when trans identifying men switch to the Women's category their results improve, reduced testosterone or not, eg Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas, and a load of US cyclists. They shoot up the rankings compared to how they performed in the Men's class.


View: https://twitter.com/i_heart__bikes/status/1779256621329158428

 

[monkers]

Yes, very athletic females, of any age, will beat less athletic, less skilled males. But in a like for like comparison, they invariably don't.

Comparing teenage boys with trans women of any age is hardly a like for like comparison. Logical fallacies are a speciality of yours. When willfully applied like this, they are strong indicators of dishonesty. Why do you persist when you get called out each time? Have you no shame?

 

[Deleted member 159]

So teenage girls will never beat any old man like yourself in any sport? What excuse will you use when you invariably lose? Females are always better than males?

I can still beat all my kids in weightlifting and cycling.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Comparing teenage boys with trans women of any age is hardly a like for like comparison. Logical fallacies are a speciality of yours. When willfully applied like this, they are strong indicators of dishonesty. Why do you persist when you get called out each time? Have you no shame?

Most trans don't use hormones, so they're perfect comparison for boys

 

[monkers]

I can still beat all my kids in weightlifting and cycling.

A sample of one is your proof? Another form of confirmation bias. It doesn't even say that your kids are teenagers or able-bodied.

The Weigh-In​

Before any lifting begins there is a weigh-in to register the actual body weight of all athletes competing. This determines which of the eight weight categories they will be competing in.

All you manage to prove with each post is that you are a bad faith actor, or quite possibly an idiot.

 

[monkers]

Most trans don't use hormones, so they're perfect comparison for boys

Again confirmation biases present. The number of trans women using hormones is irrelevant. What we need is the percentage of trans women competing in sport in the female class who 'don't use hormones'.

And again, trans women are not 'boys.

 

[monkers]

CXRAndy and Aurora - to think that you have the temerity to critique scientists when you write such unscientific garbage in the form of obvious confirmation biases.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Look I know that English is not your first language, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Look i known that English is your first language, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt instead of looking for potential bad intensions, there are too much people doing such things anyway.

Aurora made a claim that Cass talked about activism, and then provided a quote from an article in the BMJ, (not the Cass Report) that included the reference to activism.

Not only Aurora many media outlets in the uk shared that same view that the Cass report spoke about activism, and how it influenced decisions being made. (ok the guardian like usual finds a new wor for it but that is what we call copium

When challenged, she said something along the lines, 'well you've obviously not read the Cass report'. It was not necessary to read the Cass report when the quote she was using came from an article in the BMJ - an observation already made by @multitool but also spotted by me. It was a dishonest piece of writing.

why do so many media then report the report does has a whole pievce about the role of activisim and how expert are and where ''sidelined''? Do you have magic reading skills and claim you and only you known what the report says and exactly those lines? or are you talking out of your behind and the report does speak about activism or whatever acronym they use for it.

Aurora also loves to call people she disagrees with 'activists'. I have no involvement in activism.

Are you no claiming to be holy-er than the pope? you love to call people all kinds of things too, and when the roles are reversed you start crying..

It is clear that she does from her own writing, which is why the tables were turned on her. Hopefully you'll now back off, and maybe even apologise.

You haven't proven anything other then showing off your skills or typing lots of words with little meaning.

 

[icowden]

Comparing teenage boys with trans women of any age is hardly a like for like comparison.

Good job no-one did that then.

What was compared is the performance of teenage boys vs elite women athletes. What was pointed out is that if teenaged boys are routinely beating world records held by women, there is a clear advantage in being male over female for that sport. This is likely to translate into transwomen being able to easily beat biological women and this is being borne out by quite some evidence such as the race that Aurora posted.

What is up for debate, is whether a transwoman can ever be fairly allowed to compete in women's sports given that they have passed male puberty. Hence Aurora's comparison of the world record holders for 100m is only useful and valid if Usain Bolt lowers his testosterone etc to approved levels. I think I'd still put money on him though.

Logical fallacies are a speciality of yours. When willfully applied like this, they are strong indicators of dishonesty.

They aren't it wasn't and you drew a conclusion to a different question than was posed.

 

[monkers]

Good job no-one did that then.

Oh dear.

You think the logic flows that some teenage boys are faster than some elite level females contains the default position logic that trans women MUST also be faster than elite level females? That seems to be what you are agreeing with?

 

[icowden]

You think the logic flows that some teenage boys are faster than some elite level females contains the default position logic that trans women are also faster than elite level females?

This is your statement asking whether there is a logical flow to comparing transwomen to teenaged boys. I'm not sure anyone has really answered that.

 

[monkers]

This is your statement asking whether there is a logical flow to comparing transwomen to teenaged boys. I'm not sure anyone has really answered that.

Teenage school boys are faster than the olympic level women. There are thousands of results that confirm it.

A logical fallacy. Trans women are not teenage boys. The comparison is invalid.

They're male, so perfect drop example

Aurora then offered a sample of one (Bolt) and intends to use this bogus argument to support Andy. She saw it as some kind of 'gotcha' question, but it really isn't. It's a category error - Bolt is not a teenage boy, a trans woman or an elite level female athlete. What might happen to his performance if he took oestrogen - while he'd likely add a lot of body fat, experience training fatigue through muscle lactate, and lose quite badly - but nobody actually knows how well he'd do despite him being a phenomenon.

If you can't spot obvious confirmation bias at a glance, then my advice is to steer clear.