Back

To be clear, the report doesn't claim it's proven that trans women have no advantage in elite sports, but rather that the biomedical evidence is inconclusive and that the methodology of existing studies has been highly flawed.

It does go into some potential sociological factors which is good, and it draws attention to the fact that these studies are seemingly often conducted from a place of transphobia to begin with.

I suppose it's hard to do science on it as it's such a loaded topic, and the number of trans athletes is relatively small.

Right. I think that's a very important distinction.

To take it a step further, I think it's probably quite intuitive and obvious that if you're born a male, go through puberty as a male, you will have a different body composition than a female. Even with hormone suppressors. They are claiming there is no evidence that this is an advantage.

Well it is, absolutely, depending on the sport. I don't know that it could be proven that bone density, for instance, helps people perform better. But I know that some sports there is an advantage to being taller. And hormone suppressors aren't going to reduce that advantage. So that alone is definitive proof that being born a male and going through puberty as a male is advantageous in certain sports (as male's are taller on average, than females). I don't know how you could argue that isn't true.

In what world is it a good idea to give hormone suppressors to literal children? It's not a decision any child is capable of making.

Edit: Alright, you guys do have a point in that it's reversible and safe. My bad.

@StickBugged @ada @melmi @blackhole

You know that's something that happens even to cis children sometimes, right?