The first link does not support your position. It comes to broadly the same findings as the one I linked. The second link is to a DW article that haphazardly hyperlinks to a couple of small-scale studies (that were themselves included in the meta-analysis from your first link).
The idea of a preturnatural sporting advantage for trans women in womens sports is taken as an axiomatic truth by most people when this issue comes up. In fact the evidence suggests that over the first few years of GAHT, trans atheletes’ physical performance approaches that of their cis peers. They tend to remain in the same percentile of performance for their true gender post transition as they achieved in their assigned gender pre-transition.
The article I linked was a large-scale meta-analysis (52 studies, n=6485) that is looking at a broader evidence base. At the very least, it is reasonable to question the base assumption that there is an obvious performence difference in the first place. Especially when that assumption is being used to justify the exclusion of trans people from yet another aspect of public life, both in professional sports and in for-fun, low-stakes highschool and local sports.
It certainly is reasonable to question assumptions and I myself and trying to wade bought a lot of differing opinions to get to solid proof.
I am not trying to “both sides” this, I want to get to the facts so I can form an opinion.
Exclusion from school and local sports is fucking stupid in opinion.
However in regulated “official” sports I do think we need to get to a consensus.
There’s just so much misinformation. Some may say I’m perpetuating that by having this conversation but I just don’t know how else we come to any conclusion except to talk about it and assess what knowledge there is to assessed.
I’m not going to assume malicious intent from you but what you’re doing in practice is JAQing off.
If you care about getting to the facts to form an opinion, as you say you do, then you could have carefully read through the study I linked, or even the ones you posted, before you posted them. That’s what the several people who responded to you did.
I’m going to disengage now. Good luck to you on your fact finding mission.
Just Asking Questions" (JAQ; known derisively as “JAQing off”)[a] is a pseudoskeptical tactic often used by conspiracy theorists to present false or distorted claims by framing them as questions.
As you don’t want to engage with me and just quiet me then fine, but it seems disingenuous to claim that I’m a conspiracy theorist.
You could of answered my questions with facts and engaged in an actual conversation but, oh well…
You could of answered my questions with facts and engaged in an actual conversation
I did, and i did.
it seems disingenuous to claim that I’m a conspiracy theorist.
I didn’t say you were a consipiricist and I specifically didn’t ascribe to you malicious intent.
Perhaps in the spirit of learning, you could maybe read into that rhetorical technique a little. The wikipedia article maybe focuses a little too much on conspiracy theorists but it’s a well-developed concept and it is in fact what you are doing.
You are crowding the conversation with questions that you’ve not sincerely attempted to answer for yourself, instead you saw my comment, googled for 30 seconds and dumped two links in here, that you didn’t read, as if they were some kindof gotcha. You’ve forced several other people to take time to engage you in the substance of your questions, which they, and I, did.
Nobody is silencing you, I’m disengaging because this is the sum-total of the amount of energy I’m willing to put into this conversation with a stranger, whose motives I don’t fully trust. You are of course free to continue crashing out.
Every comment you’ve made has tried to ascribe malicious intent, from claiming my thoughts aren’t my own, to telling me that asking questions is somehow malicious.
No you haven’t you’ve just attacked the person questioning the validity of what you posted
I haven’t forced anyone to do anything.
You posted the wiki article, not me, I just quoted it.
What is this nonsense about crowding the conversation? I just took part in it, it seems clear that you only want to engage with people who share your opinions, fine but why even bother replying?
And as to your attempt to belittle my position by claiming I’m “crashing out”, childish
The first link does not support your position. It comes to broadly the same findings as the one I linked. The second link is to a DW article that haphazardly hyperlinks to a couple of small-scale studies (that were themselves included in the meta-analysis from your first link).
The idea of a preturnatural sporting advantage for trans women in womens sports is taken as an axiomatic truth by most people when this issue comes up. In fact the evidence suggests that over the first few years of GAHT, trans atheletes’ physical performance approaches that of their cis peers. They tend to remain in the same percentile of performance for their true gender post transition as they achieved in their assigned gender pre-transition.
The article I linked was a large-scale meta-analysis (52 studies, n=6485) that is looking at a broader evidence base. At the very least, it is reasonable to question the base assumption that there is an obvious performence difference in the first place. Especially when that assumption is being used to justify the exclusion of trans people from yet another aspect of public life, both in professional sports and in for-fun, low-stakes highschool and local sports.
This was him attempting to engage you in the conversation. You completely ignored it and continue to play dumb so you can pretend to be the victim here.
You’re either a complete idiot or a troll, and my money is on the latter.
You have a right to do many things but they will not always be appropriate or do anything to help humanity develop. Oh, and you missed the sarcastic rhetoric. You aren’t asking questions, you are pasting in talking points that someone else wrote to detour the conversation and cast doubt on the rights of others. Stand up behavior.
Wow. That’s a lot of assumptions that help you shut down conversation, how do you think you’re going to help human development if you just shit on people trying to form opinions?
Who is this someone else? Are you really that insecure in your opinions that you need to invent conspiracies? What next? I’m a shill for some anti trans … something?
I guess we should all just live in echo chambers of similar thought and never try and change or form new opinions.
The first link does not support your position. It comes to broadly the same findings as the one I linked. The second link is to a DW article that haphazardly hyperlinks to a couple of small-scale studies (that were themselves included in the meta-analysis from your first link).
The idea of a preturnatural sporting advantage for trans women in womens sports is taken as an axiomatic truth by most people when this issue comes up. In fact the evidence suggests that over the first few years of GAHT, trans atheletes’ physical performance approaches that of their cis peers. They tend to remain in the same percentile of performance for their true gender post transition as they achieved in their assigned gender pre-transition.
The article I linked was a large-scale meta-analysis (52 studies, n=6485) that is looking at a broader evidence base. At the very least, it is reasonable to question the base assumption that there is an obvious performence difference in the first place. Especially when that assumption is being used to justify the exclusion of trans people from yet another aspect of public life, both in professional sports and in for-fun, low-stakes highschool and local sports.
It certainly is reasonable to question assumptions and I myself and trying to wade bought a lot of differing opinions to get to solid proof.
I am not trying to “both sides” this, I want to get to the facts so I can form an opinion.
Exclusion from school and local sports is fucking stupid in opinion.
However in regulated “official” sports I do think we need to get to a consensus.
There’s just so much misinformation. Some may say I’m perpetuating that by having this conversation but I just don’t know how else we come to any conclusion except to talk about it and assess what knowledge there is to assessed.
I’m not going to assume malicious intent from you but what you’re doing in practice is JAQing off.
If you care about getting to the facts to form an opinion, as you say you do, then you could have carefully read through the study I linked, or even the ones you posted, before you posted them. That’s what the several people who responded to you did.
I’m going to disengage now. Good luck to you on your fact finding mission.
Just Asking Questions" (JAQ; known derisively as “JAQing off”)[a] is a pseudoskeptical tactic often used by conspiracy theorists to present false or distorted claims by framing them as questions.
As you don’t want to engage with me and just quiet me then fine, but it seems disingenuous to claim that I’m a conspiracy theorist.
You could of answered my questions with facts and engaged in an actual conversation but, oh well…
I did, and i did.
I didn’t say you were a consipiricist and I specifically didn’t ascribe to you malicious intent.
Perhaps in the spirit of learning, you could maybe read into that rhetorical technique a little. The wikipedia article maybe focuses a little too much on conspiracy theorists but it’s a well-developed concept and it is in fact what you are doing.
You are crowding the conversation with questions that you’ve not sincerely attempted to answer for yourself, instead you saw my comment, googled for 30 seconds and dumped two links in here, that you didn’t read, as if they were some kindof gotcha. You’ve forced several other people to take time to engage you in the substance of your questions, which they, and I, did.
Nobody is silencing you, I’m disengaging because this is the sum-total of the amount of energy I’m willing to put into this conversation with a stranger, whose motives I don’t fully trust. You are of course free to continue crashing out.
My point was that there isn’t consensus.
You refuse to engage with that conversation.
Every comment you’ve made has tried to ascribe malicious intent, from claiming my thoughts aren’t my own, to telling me that asking questions is somehow malicious.
No you haven’t you’ve just attacked the person questioning the validity of what you posted
I haven’t forced anyone to do anything.
You posted the wiki article, not me, I just quoted it.
What is this nonsense about crowding the conversation? I just took part in it, it seems clear that you only want to engage with people who share your opinions, fine but why even bother replying?
And as to your attempt to belittle my position by claiming I’m “crashing out”, childish
Anyway, enjoy your day.
This was him attempting to engage you in the conversation. You completely ignored it and continue to play dumb so you can pretend to be the victim here.
You’re either a complete idiot or a troll, and my money is on the latter.
“I’m just asking questions…”
Am I not allowed to?
You have a right to do many things but they will not always be appropriate or do anything to help humanity develop. Oh, and you missed the sarcastic rhetoric. You aren’t asking questions, you are pasting in talking points that someone else wrote to detour the conversation and cast doubt on the rights of others. Stand up behavior.
It’s not healthy to look for enemies in every interaction. Detouring the conversation and casting doubt on the rights of others? When? Where?
Wow. That’s a lot of assumptions that help you shut down conversation, how do you think you’re going to help human development if you just shit on people trying to form opinions?
Who is this someone else? Are you really that insecure in your opinions that you need to invent conspiracies? What next? I’m a shill for some anti trans … something?
I guess we should all just live in echo chambers of similar thought and never try and change or form new opinions.
Anyway enjoy your day I guess…
Yeah, you are a shill for an ad-hoc political movement meant to keep the rich powerful:
https://atmos.earth/political-landscapes/fossil-fuel-billionaires-are-bankrolling-the-anti-trans-movement/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-anti-transgender-political-ads-are-dominating-the-airwaves-this-election