The argument that GAHT reduces performance and therefore it’s fair seems to me a classic diversion. For me, eating chocolate cake and not exercising reduces *my* performance. Does that mean I can compete in the women’s category? If not why not? GAHT isn’t obligatory. Nor is chocolate cake.
As ever, an excellent, excellent piece. I agree with everything you write, because it's inarguable, except this: "It’s dressed up to look like science, but it doesn’t fool anybody." Tragically, it fools far too many people--admittedly, people whose eyes glaze over at the words "pseudo-eligibility" and "longitudinal" and never read the actual so-called study, yet accept its conclusion unblinkingly. Far too many women, even, are digging their own graves, believing themselves comfortably ethical for supporting the systematic dismantling of women's rights. Keep fighting the good fight, Sarah. They're not fooling you.
Thank you Sarah for another great column. Appreciate you linking our rebuttal letter in the column as the paper by Hamilton that you so well describe as horrible science, is indeed horrible science. What greatly concerns me is that these articles are passing peer-review and being published. The huge flaws in the paper, and erroneous conclusions, would never have passed peer-review, in my opinion, a few years ago. The capture of the medical scientific community by the trans inclusion movement is deeply troubling. But we keep fighting to publish good science and rebuttals to this terrible and misleading publications.
You articulate the problem exactly Mary. These absurdly flawed "studies" that should never have been published, and wouldn't have been, as you say, a few years ago, are being published and then used as proof that males have no advantage, or that T reduction miraculously eliminates it. The NY Times is one of the worst offenders, simply copying and pasting these sensational conclusions without bothering to read through this utter crap and realizing that even Harper's and Hamilton's own data does not support that conclusion. Would be ludicrous if it were not so damaging
Once again Sarah, an excellent article. TA's have always redefined reality but pointing out blatant lies in scientific papers is reflective of just how low they will go to push a ridiculous agenda. Thank you for you dogged pursuit to exposing this nonsense!
"Harper wrote: 'There is significant evidence that gender identity is largely or perhaps entirely biological. Hence transgender women [trans-identified males] are never wholly biologically male.' "
Citations, please!
On the lighter side, if true, it would mean full employment for gene scientists while they go about identifying the genes that encode each of the 72 (MedicineNet) or 81 (Helpful Professor) gender identities that are listed on the Web, where everything is true.
However, are trans activists not smart enough to realize they're playing with fire by claiming there is a biological basis for gender identity?
Would they really want an objective test to separate "true trans" from the transtrenders, the queers, the so-called "trans kids," the ROGD girls and all the unfortunate troubled males and females who have been brainwashed into thinking they can solve all their inner and interpersonal problems by transitioning?
In a separate vein, as compelling as it is to cite males' physiological advantages as the reason for excluding males who identify as females from female-only sports, it does invite attempts like this one to show there is no such advantage. Speaking only for myself, I would continue to argue that trans women are not eligible for women's-only sports because they are not real women. I would not want silence on that point to be taken as assent to the fiction that trans women are women.
So many good points Ollie. I did not think of the implications of a biological basis for transgenderism, and me thinks Harper has not either.
I hope I made clear up near the top of my morning howl and battle cry of freedom that, yes, I too feel these "studies" that hope to address the unfairness and sports advantage of males in women's sports are really only addressing one part of the issue. The giant elephant in the room is that "trans women" are male, thus not eligible for the female category
They don't need proof; gender ideology is a religion. Besides, they can always just define male as a person who exhibits “maleness.” In the wacky world of gender ideology, that can be simply clothing choices. Or words, in the case of self-identification policies.
They are conflating gender identity with gender expression. Gender expression is natural, normal and innate. There are some feminine-looking men and masculine-looking women, a natural way of being for many butch lesbians. The problem is the relevance of a gender nonconforming person. When society judges lesbians, is that partly based on discomfort with their gender nonconformity? For the record, that's only half the lesbians. The rest appear effeminate and routinely pass as straight. People are even harsher on gender nonconforming boys and men. Why not just accept them for who they are? Are people still freaked out if their son is gay, or straight but slightly effeminate? When you tell a kid they might be the opposite sex, you're literally telling them they fail as the sex that they are. No wonder so many young adults have higher suicidal ideation after transitioning.
We've written a federal bill that solves all this confusion. Gender identity and transgender are both defined in our bill as opt-in categories. As both are labels a person chooses to describe their discomfort or alignment with their sex, neither can be treated as a protected class. Opt-in categories are why we now have male convicted rapists in female prisons.
Help us fix this problem before Trump muddies the water with a poorly thought out presidential signing statement.
Reminds me of when I asked a sports attorney who was a US university law professor how girly a man has to be in order to qualify to compete in Olympic boxing and beat the sh!t out of the world's best female athletes. He said that's what they're trying to figure out in international sports law! Yikes. Bad science promoted in university classes to help future attorneys learn how to screw women and girls out of our rights.
This guy has a middle school aged daughter. I had taken him to lunch to ask him to join a nonprofit that will help female athletes participate in sex-segregated sports, even in blue states that have laws promoting male rights above female. When I asked what will happen when a mediocre male athlete beats his daughter and takes her scholarship, he looked me in the eye and said he's a university professor, he can afford to pay for college for his daughter if a transgender girl competes and wins.
Lol, “I've got mine, tough luck for those poorer high school girls.”
My analysis:
1) He'll make plenty of money over the next decade not just teaching at a law school but also by helping blue state universities and international sporting organizations cheat female athletes.
2) He completely misses the point of how demoralizing it is to a female athlete to be beaten by a mediocre male athlete, all the while your school is demanding you call the guy who beat you “she.”
3) Thanks to university professors pushing gender ideology for profit, girls will eventually not bother committing hours a day for years of their lives to become highly skilled elite athletes. Girls sports will die as more females are battered and beaten by males.
As of August 2024, the Biden/Harris administration has reversed Title IX. We need to #ReverseTheReversalofTitleIX. If you think Trump can do this, think again. If he uses a presidential signing statement, 20-25 blue states will simply get an injunction in federal court against it. Red states will continue to protect female students while blue states will destroy girls sports promoting the interests of males over females. In two years, the Democrats will try to retake the House on this issue, claiming Republicans are mean to poor little trans girls. Then in four years, they'll use this issue to retake the presidency.
We have a better idea. We want Trump to sign a federal bill instead of a presidential signing statement. We think we can build a broad based coalition from the Left, Right and middle to give Congress and the Executive the authority to fix this problem correctly.
If any of you want to “do better” than a dolt university professor who is also failing as a dad, if you want to help us help girls have sex-segregated sporting opportunities while developing a movement that Democrats won't be able to challenge in court, contact me via Substack.
I have been an ok local yokel runner (14:56, 31:13, 1:08:30) and a decent over 40 hobby racer cyclist (I have ridden a 40k TT in 330w, 20k in 350w) and I can tell you the gender difference is more stark in cycling than in running. I was a much better runner than cyclist relative to local/state level competition and I am not sure any women have a 330w Functional Threshold Power in cycling. Sure watts/kg matters in climbing (not so much on flats) but the absolute power overwhelms the somewhat higher weights men race at. Check out the elite men vs elite women watts per kg chart and you can extrapolate absolute FTPs from that. Elite women wouldn't even be Cat 2/3 racers for men https://www.trainerroad.com/forum/t/seniors-v-master-w-kg-category-chart/59911
So basically we have a study shows that someone who lies in bed eating eclairs for a month shooting up drugs used to sterilize sex offenders in Alabama could perform worse than someone who doesn’t.
Leaping from that we say that therefore all people who compete could perform worse than others they compete against, therefore anyone should be able to fairly compete with anyone.
It’s the fallacy of “secundum quid” or hasty generalization, then false equivalence, and finally a non-sequitur.
Since a professional adult female could conceivably perform worse than a geriatric male with no legs, we should allow Flo-Jo to compete with a blind elderly diabetic who has lost their legs to diabetic gangrene.
We move from reality into fantasyland so breathlessly quickly it’s often hard to see the billboard “welcome to delusion” as we turn the page.
This is outrageous and I love how you picked through the bullshit. This needs to be circulated everywhere. Put on billboards. How is society so stupid? Reading this makes me so pissed at my friends who laugh and blow me off when I talk about this. I don’t want to be friends anymore with people who choose to be ignorant. It’s so very sad.
I've only casually looked through sci lit on this topic. Best paper I've seenwas published a few years ago by medicos associated with USAF. Members of USAF must partake in regular fitness testing (timed run, push ups, sit ups). Since USAF allows transition, we're able to get data on a fair number of transwomen and translates and compare against huge number of males and females across 2 years. Of note is that in addition to large N, all the groups had similar levels of physical training at start of study, and all were motivated similarly to perform. After 2 years, transwomen still had a very signicant better timed run than women. Still had better pull-ups, although not Stat signicant, and similar setups to females.
If they're causing you to consume your time in detailed analysis of their never-ending shovelfuls of bullshit, rather than using your time going on the offensive, then they are achieving their goal 🧐
If your offensive is buried in your long, long analysis that no one except traumatized victims and science ultrageeks will read, it's not an offensive.
If you gotta do it anyway, you might be addicted to outrage porn, or the clicks that result from it.
"That's BS. Here's the proof. Your screed is just more evidence of how out of touch with reality and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion and compromise the trans movement is. If they can't even be reasonable about so obvious an issue as sports, they can't be reasonable about anything. Next!"
“Ultimately, the former male physiology of transwoman athletes provides them with a physiological advantage over the cis-female athlete.”
The argument that GAHT reduces performance and therefore it’s fair seems to me a classic diversion. For me, eating chocolate cake and not exercising reduces *my* performance. Does that mean I can compete in the women’s category? If not why not? GAHT isn’t obligatory. Nor is chocolate cake.
Exactly. The whole conceit of reducing sport performance is ridiculous and anti-sport.
I love this analogy!
As ever, an excellent, excellent piece. I agree with everything you write, because it's inarguable, except this: "It’s dressed up to look like science, but it doesn’t fool anybody." Tragically, it fools far too many people--admittedly, people whose eyes glaze over at the words "pseudo-eligibility" and "longitudinal" and never read the actual so-called study, yet accept its conclusion unblinkingly. Far too many women, even, are digging their own graves, believing themselves comfortably ethical for supporting the systematic dismantling of women's rights. Keep fighting the good fight, Sarah. They're not fooling you.
Thank you Sarah for another great column. Appreciate you linking our rebuttal letter in the column as the paper by Hamilton that you so well describe as horrible science, is indeed horrible science. What greatly concerns me is that these articles are passing peer-review and being published. The huge flaws in the paper, and erroneous conclusions, would never have passed peer-review, in my opinion, a few years ago. The capture of the medical scientific community by the trans inclusion movement is deeply troubling. But we keep fighting to publish good science and rebuttals to this terrible and misleading publications.
You articulate the problem exactly Mary. These absurdly flawed "studies" that should never have been published, and wouldn't have been, as you say, a few years ago, are being published and then used as proof that males have no advantage, or that T reduction miraculously eliminates it. The NY Times is one of the worst offenders, simply copying and pasting these sensational conclusions without bothering to read through this utter crap and realizing that even Harper's and Hamilton's own data does not support that conclusion. Would be ludicrous if it were not so damaging
Yes, it would be ludicrous if it wasn't so damaging. 1000% agree!
Once again Sarah, an excellent article. TA's have always redefined reality but pointing out blatant lies in scientific papers is reflective of just how low they will go to push a ridiculous agenda. Thank you for you dogged pursuit to exposing this nonsense!
"Harper wrote: 'There is significant evidence that gender identity is largely or perhaps entirely biological. Hence transgender women [trans-identified males] are never wholly biologically male.' "
Citations, please!
On the lighter side, if true, it would mean full employment for gene scientists while they go about identifying the genes that encode each of the 72 (MedicineNet) or 81 (Helpful Professor) gender identities that are listed on the Web, where everything is true.
However, are trans activists not smart enough to realize they're playing with fire by claiming there is a biological basis for gender identity?
Would they really want an objective test to separate "true trans" from the transtrenders, the queers, the so-called "trans kids," the ROGD girls and all the unfortunate troubled males and females who have been brainwashed into thinking they can solve all their inner and interpersonal problems by transitioning?
In a separate vein, as compelling as it is to cite males' physiological advantages as the reason for excluding males who identify as females from female-only sports, it does invite attempts like this one to show there is no such advantage. Speaking only for myself, I would continue to argue that trans women are not eligible for women's-only sports because they are not real women. I would not want silence on that point to be taken as assent to the fiction that trans women are women.
So many good points Ollie. I did not think of the implications of a biological basis for transgenderism, and me thinks Harper has not either.
I hope I made clear up near the top of my morning howl and battle cry of freedom that, yes, I too feel these "studies" that hope to address the unfairness and sports advantage of males in women's sports are really only addressing one part of the issue. The giant elephant in the room is that "trans women" are male, thus not eligible for the female category
They don't need proof; gender ideology is a religion. Besides, they can always just define male as a person who exhibits “maleness.” In the wacky world of gender ideology, that can be simply clothing choices. Or words, in the case of self-identification policies.
They are conflating gender identity with gender expression. Gender expression is natural, normal and innate. There are some feminine-looking men and masculine-looking women, a natural way of being for many butch lesbians. The problem is the relevance of a gender nonconforming person. When society judges lesbians, is that partly based on discomfort with their gender nonconformity? For the record, that's only half the lesbians. The rest appear effeminate and routinely pass as straight. People are even harsher on gender nonconforming boys and men. Why not just accept them for who they are? Are people still freaked out if their son is gay, or straight but slightly effeminate? When you tell a kid they might be the opposite sex, you're literally telling them they fail as the sex that they are. No wonder so many young adults have higher suicidal ideation after transitioning.
We've written a federal bill that solves all this confusion. Gender identity and transgender are both defined in our bill as opt-in categories. As both are labels a person chooses to describe their discomfort or alignment with their sex, neither can be treated as a protected class. Opt-in categories are why we now have male convicted rapists in female prisons.
Help us fix this problem before Trump muddies the water with a poorly thought out presidential signing statement.
Reminds me of when I asked a sports attorney who was a US university law professor how girly a man has to be in order to qualify to compete in Olympic boxing and beat the sh!t out of the world's best female athletes. He said that's what they're trying to figure out in international sports law! Yikes. Bad science promoted in university classes to help future attorneys learn how to screw women and girls out of our rights.
This guy has a middle school aged daughter. I had taken him to lunch to ask him to join a nonprofit that will help female athletes participate in sex-segregated sports, even in blue states that have laws promoting male rights above female. When I asked what will happen when a mediocre male athlete beats his daughter and takes her scholarship, he looked me in the eye and said he's a university professor, he can afford to pay for college for his daughter if a transgender girl competes and wins.
Lol, “I've got mine, tough luck for those poorer high school girls.”
My analysis:
1) He'll make plenty of money over the next decade not just teaching at a law school but also by helping blue state universities and international sporting organizations cheat female athletes.
2) He completely misses the point of how demoralizing it is to a female athlete to be beaten by a mediocre male athlete, all the while your school is demanding you call the guy who beat you “she.”
3) Thanks to university professors pushing gender ideology for profit, girls will eventually not bother committing hours a day for years of their lives to become highly skilled elite athletes. Girls sports will die as more females are battered and beaten by males.
As of August 2024, the Biden/Harris administration has reversed Title IX. We need to #ReverseTheReversalofTitleIX. If you think Trump can do this, think again. If he uses a presidential signing statement, 20-25 blue states will simply get an injunction in federal court against it. Red states will continue to protect female students while blue states will destroy girls sports promoting the interests of males over females. In two years, the Democrats will try to retake the House on this issue, claiming Republicans are mean to poor little trans girls. Then in four years, they'll use this issue to retake the presidency.
We have a better idea. We want Trump to sign a federal bill instead of a presidential signing statement. We think we can build a broad based coalition from the Left, Right and middle to give Congress and the Executive the authority to fix this problem correctly.
If any of you want to “do better” than a dolt university professor who is also failing as a dad, if you want to help us help girls have sex-segregated sporting opportunities while developing a movement that Democrats won't be able to challenge in court, contact me via Substack.
I have been an ok local yokel runner (14:56, 31:13, 1:08:30) and a decent over 40 hobby racer cyclist (I have ridden a 40k TT in 330w, 20k in 350w) and I can tell you the gender difference is more stark in cycling than in running. I was a much better runner than cyclist relative to local/state level competition and I am not sure any women have a 330w Functional Threshold Power in cycling. Sure watts/kg matters in climbing (not so much on flats) but the absolute power overwhelms the somewhat higher weights men race at. Check out the elite men vs elite women watts per kg chart and you can extrapolate absolute FTPs from that. Elite women wouldn't even be Cat 2/3 racers for men https://www.trainerroad.com/forum/t/seniors-v-master-w-kg-category-chart/59911
Men take performance inhibiting drugs, claim to be as bad as female athletes now.
Ha! Sounds like an Onion headline. Sadly, it's not
Fascinating read.
So basically we have a study shows that someone who lies in bed eating eclairs for a month shooting up drugs used to sterilize sex offenders in Alabama could perform worse than someone who doesn’t.
Leaping from that we say that therefore all people who compete could perform worse than others they compete against, therefore anyone should be able to fairly compete with anyone.
It’s the fallacy of “secundum quid” or hasty generalization, then false equivalence, and finally a non-sequitur.
Since a professional adult female could conceivably perform worse than a geriatric male with no legs, we should allow Flo-Jo to compete with a blind elderly diabetic who has lost their legs to diabetic gangrene.
We move from reality into fantasyland so breathlessly quickly it’s often hard to see the billboard “welcome to delusion” as we turn the page.
This is outrageous and I love how you picked through the bullshit. This needs to be circulated everywhere. Put on billboards. How is society so stupid? Reading this makes me so pissed at my friends who laugh and blow me off when I talk about this. I don’t want to be friends anymore with people who choose to be ignorant. It’s so very sad.
Thanks for dissecting this BS.
I've only casually looked through sci lit on this topic. Best paper I've seenwas published a few years ago by medicos associated with USAF. Members of USAF must partake in regular fitness testing (timed run, push ups, sit ups). Since USAF allows transition, we're able to get data on a fair number of transwomen and translates and compare against huge number of males and females across 2 years. Of note is that in addition to large N, all the groups had similar levels of physical training at start of study, and all were motivated similarly to perform. After 2 years, transwomen still had a very signicant better timed run than women. Still had better pull-ups, although not Stat signicant, and similar setups to females.
TW: tough love
If they're causing you to consume your time in detailed analysis of their never-ending shovelfuls of bullshit, rather than using your time going on the offensive, then they are achieving their goal 🧐
If your offensive is buried in your long, long analysis that no one except traumatized victims and science ultrageeks will read, it's not an offensive.
If you gotta do it anyway, you might be addicted to outrage porn, or the clicks that result from it.
"That's BS. Here's the proof. Your screed is just more evidence of how out of touch with reality and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion and compromise the trans movement is. If they can't even be reasonable about so obvious an issue as sports, they can't be reasonable about anything. Next!"
“Ultimately, the former male physiology of transwoman athletes provides them with a physiological advantage over the cis-female athlete.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
“Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
Great job. Thanks.