Reply With Quote
Good luck!
(other posters are pretty much ungovernable.)
Describing your ad hominem doesn't make it any less of one. Your doing the merchant of doubt bull .
Good luck!
(other posters are pretty much ungovernable.)
If you want to stick to one study, where one half of the researchers show very clear bias heading into the research, great, you do you. Just don't try to pass it as "objective reality" where the discussion stops there. It's silly.
It did but Blake/Chump took that comparison and have been trying to pin it on mem since
At least I have a study. All you give is one fallacy after the other using ty tactics conservatives used in the climate threads.
There is no clear bias nor any evidence that they falsified or misrepresented any data. All we have is more unsubstantiated assertions and low grade trolling. As usual.
Huh? I gave you testimony from a researcher that's made his living off of it and has given his input to the Olympics committee.
Here's two studies that took me 20 seconds to Google:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
Conclusion: Summary The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.
https://www.hotpress.com/health/a-st...orts-22953899:
2022 study by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) found that transgender women athletes have no advantages over their cisgender peers.
Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport: A Scientific Review was published in late 2022. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) is a non-profit advocating for fairness, safety, accessibility, and inclusivity in sports.
The study spanned between the years 2011 and 2021, using compiled research to observe and report upon key biomedical findings and sociocultural findings. It was commissioned by the CCES to evaluate the differences in performance between trans women and cisgender women athletes....
But as I said above, there needs to be more research done on it. There's just not enough out there to make a conclusive statement one way or the other to say "discussion over cuz objective reality sez so"
Lol "unsubstantiated". I posted up above the link to the reason I think she's biased. What's wrong with you?There is no clear bias nor any evidence that they falsified or misrepresented any data. All we have is more unsubstantiated assertions and low grade trolling. As usual.
You thinking something is not substantiation. And the first article referred to the 10% improvement baseline and said b-b-b-ut its complicated because many sports which was also rebutted and never addressed.Huh? I gave you testimony from a researcher that's made his living off of it and has given his input to the Olympics committee.
Here's two studies that took me 20 seconds to Google:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577
Conclusion: Summary The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.
https://www.hotpress.com/health/a-st...orts-22953899:
2022 study by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) found that transgender women athletes have no advantages over their cisgender peers.
Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport: A Scientific Review was published in late 2022. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) is a non-profit advocating for fairness, safety, accessibility, and inclusivity in sports.
The study spanned between the years 2011 and 2021, using compiled research to observe and report upon key biomedical findings and sociocultural findings. It was commissioned by the CCES to evaluate the differences in performance between trans women and cisgender women athletes....
But as I said above, there needs to be more research done on it. There's just not enough out there to make a conclusive statement one way or the other to say "discussion over cuz objective reality sez so"
Lol "unsubstantiated". I posted up above the link to the reason I think she's biased. What's wrong with you?
The first article you posted said that trans women still had a 9% increase in performance. My article talks about a 10-50% increase. You sure showed me, dimwit.
Then of course the other quote you gave was a conclusion that a) had zero analysis as to why they came to that conclusion much like most of what you do and b) contradicts what your first article says. What is going to be one or the other?
It is obvious that you are lazy and stupid. Take more than 20 seconds next time.
You thinking something is not substantiation. And the first article referred to the 10% improvement baseline and said b-b-b-ut its complicated because many sports which was also rebutted and never addressed.
The first article you posted said that trans women still had a 9% increase in performance. My article talks about a 10-50% increase. You sure showed me, dimwit.
Then of course the other quote you gave was a conclusion that a) had zero analysis as to why they came to that conclusion much like most of what you do and b) contradicts what your first article says. What is going to be one or the other?
It is obvious that you are lazy and stupid. Take more than 20 seconds next time.
Lol yeah I knew I wasted that 20 seconds. You're not really here to discuss anything. You're here for self proclaimed Internet victories. Just like dmc.
And Blake folds.
There were direct refutations and extensions of other things you ignored as you did again here. That is not an assertion of victory. You have no idea what that means apparently.
Dumb, lazy, and an intellectual coward.
Also nice job playing the victim after using the crying smilies when I described you desperately trying to pin the DMC label on me after paralleling your behavior to his. Still desperate too I see. Like I said, as ingenuous as that story about your wife.
^ neh, you didn't really read what I posted, which I just posted because you asked for something. You've posted one, one research link and are claiming "objective reality" victory.
And now you're going extra personal again. Just like dmc.
This exchange is going nowhere like usual, so sure, I'm folding and leaving the table. It's more fun for me to just laugh at all your hypocritical posts, and whining about posters.
Like I said you don't know what it means. You're blanket out of hand dismissal here, OTOH.
You lasted one rebuttal of your assertions and you are now to this.
Dumb, lazy, and an intellectual coward.
I posted a study that you responded to with two articles.
I pointed out my study said that men had a 10-50% athletic advantage and that transition made minimal difference particularly with training.
The fist articl you posted a 9% improvement. It was at that point I pointed out that you didn't read any of this and were both stupid and lazy.
The other article only asserted something and gave no basis for it. It also contradicted your first article.
You then started claiming that all I wanted to do was make it personal as opposed to even acknowledging any of this.
Coward.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 06-18-2023 at 07:18 PM.
The reality is that you made a claim of "objective reality", got your ass hurt that I laughed at your claim and then you started raging about me until you finally gave one research study on it.
And that one study does extremely little to prove "objective reality" because if you really looked, you'd find there's not currently a consensus in the scientific community on the matter.
Now wail some more.
You keep bring up that I am angry as if that would make any difference if it were true. It's all you ever talk about.
You still have not addressed the rebuttals and insist on your original assertion.
And consensus does not dictate objective reality. That you conflate the two underlines your ignorance.
Add boring to dumb lazy and cowardly.
It's your assertation, not mine. You're still whining instead of working on having it up. Do you even have a working definition for "objective reality"?
All right so we have two studies posited indicating that trans women have a 9+% athletic advantage over XX chromosome types. Looks like Abbot ws justified in banning trans women from sports.
Question pending: do you have a working definition for "objective reality"?
lol what's he gonna do, take them for a spin
"state law isn't a buffet line, local DAs can't pick and choose which laws to enforce, nor can they choose not to enforce certain laws."
(even though expedience and time pressure routinely force DAs to do both. the schedule cannot be expanded to accommodate all disputes, nor is there time to enforce every single law.)
What about rogue state attorney general(s)
Go full re , get reelected again and again.
the pattern seems to be for states to deprive them of authority by statute, if the state lege is solidly R. for example, by criminalizing prosecutorial discretion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
