This is also not evidence. It's a collection of anecdotal statements from presumably unqualified individuals, published by a site described by Media Bias as right-biased with "mixed" factual reporting (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-signal/). You might as well link me to a YouTube comments section.
Seriously, dude. If you're not interested in a civil debate, just say so. But evidence doesn't go away if you ignore it.
You're retreating into echo chambers - like that link you sent me - full of people that think like you and confirm what you already believe. Listening to them make you feel righteous and superior - so many people agree with you, so you must be right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a bit slow or has an agenda. Right? I get that. It's natural. People don't like having to question their beliefs, and it's so much easier to stick with what you know, or what you think you know.
But just because it's common doesn't mean it isn't problematic. This kind of reasoning - retreating into echo chambers and ignoring evidence - is what enables anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and the essential oil people, tricks normally smart individuals into cults and scams, and generally spreads ignorance. Even if you are right about trans people in sports, what you're doing will still be problematic. Not just because you're unable to accept new evidence, but also because you'll never be able to convince anyone else you're right if your only response to their arguments is referring them to other people that agree with you, or telling them they're stupid. There's nothing to be ashamed of in taking a step back and reassessing your beliefs - even if you ultimately decide that they're right. You throw shade on religious people for believing things without evidence - so why not practice what you preach? Pun intended. Be skeptical. It's a good trait to have.
If it makes you feel better about it, you can be a conservative and still form your own opinions about things. I mean, most conservatives are traditional Christians, but you rejected that and became an atheist because it felt right to you. You don't have to consult the hive mind for every belief you hold. I don't. I'm a liberal, but also I'm a gun owner and I don't think hate speech should be illegal (unless it directly threatens or encourages violence). Frankly, you never seemed particularly conservative on social issues in the first place.
Read my comment here, by the way, although I suspect you already did and just don't want to acknowledge it: https://www.isitnormal.com/post/iin-i-feel-superior-to-women-287017/comment/2888250
I see two articles from scientific journals in that bibliography, neither of which are directly relevant to transgender athletes. I'm really not buying it. I'll accept evidence that you can find - but I don't see any so far.
Which link doesn't work? I might be able to fix that.
I've now read 4 articles making that case and they all state that HRT lowers the advantages. But that's not what I'm debating. It does not lower it all the way we at least need a separate section for trans athletes. How many sources do you want me to find?
The second link worked but they think only testosterone matters which is wrong.
Articles != scientific evidence. I've yet to see a single scientific study from you that backs up that idea. So far, you've linked a random YouTube video that cites no sources and an opinion piece by a fitness site that cites few relevant sources (and no relevant studies). I'm not sure what you mean by "how many sources do you want me to find" since you've hardly found any. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly have no idea what you're getting at.
Also, I hate to repeat myself, but I feel like you've just ignored everything I've presented. So here goes...
2016 systematic review of multiple studies that concludes transwomen have no significant advantage (and that transgender people face extra challenges in sports including discrimination and transphobia): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y
Recent study on the performance of transgender distance runners that shows that transwomen have similar competitiveness before and after transitioning (i.e. you are in the 25th percentile as a cis man competing in male competitions, transition, and continue to be in the 25th percentile as a trans woman competing in female competitions - basically, no advantage): https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes?category_id=common-ground-publishing
Article by transgender physicist that states "hormone therapy for trans women typically involves a testosterone-blocking drug plus an estrogen supplement. As their testosterone levels approach female norms, trans women see a decrease in muscle mass, bone density and the proportion of oxygen-carrying red cells in their blood. The estrogen, meanwhile, boosts fat storage, especially around the hips. Together, these changes lead to a loss of speed, strength and endurance — all key components of athleticism." (not just testosterone - not sure where you're getting that from): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-edge-i-sure-dont/2015/04/01/ccacb1da-c68e-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html
Article by PhD student that summarizes the available evidence, and gives alternatives to discriminating against trans people: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/
I could find more articles, but I'd rather focus on the evidence over opinion pieces - and once again, here's that review (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y) on every relevant study before 2016 the authors could find. (I did some basic background work to make sure this is a real article, but if you find anything that suggests it's unreliable, please do tell me).
I try to keep an open mind, and I hope you will too.
If you ignore all my sources all ignore all yours. I know enough about this to make up my own mind. Trans athletes need to compete against other trans athletes to make sure it's fair. I really would love to meet some irl who thinks this so I can make them look stupid but I haven't found anyone. To me it's common sense.
I did not ignore your sources, I explained why they're not reliable - for example, the fact that neither of them cited a relevant scientific study. There's a difference. If I link a blog post by some random dude saying that transwomen can shoot lasers from their eyes, you can tell me that's unverified bullshit coming from a completely unreliable source, and that would be a perfectly valid response. "This isn't a reliable source because X, Y and Z" (or "my evidence is more reliable because X, Y and Z") is a reasonable rebuttal / criticism that we can debate. "I'm ignoring your evidence" is not.
Intuition isn't always correct. Plenty of "common sense" is actually wrong - here's an AskReddit thread of people sharing facts that go against intuition - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b3hs98/what_common_sense_is_actually_wrong/. (This isn't actually important evidence or anything so you don't have to read it, but it might be interesting.)
"I know enough about this to make up my own mind."
This boils down to "I know I'm right because I know I'm right." It's circular reasoning that helps nobody. Pretty much everyone is confident in their beliefs - and if we always assumed we're right and refused to change our minds even in the face of evidence to the contrary, there would never be any progress. Admittedly, a lot of people struggle with it, me included. I do my best to keep an open mind about things, and look for reliable evidence instead of confirmation. I'm not perfect and I'm often more stubborn about my beliefs than I should be, but I try.
Don't debate to "make the other person look stupid", debate to find the truth. It's not shameful to be wrong about something. We all are at some point. It's shameful to be unwilling to learn. Don't place your ego over the truth. I've talked to you on here before, you seem like a smart person. You're better than this, dude. Keep an open mind. Accept that you're wrong sometimes - maybe about this, maybe not - and don't be willfully ignorant.
IIN I feel superior to women
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I see a lot of analyticals and a lack of actual evidence. Care to disprove the review I linked?
--
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/19/we-hear-you-when-transgender-athletes-crush-the-girls/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjy74nZ1KPkAhUBDKwKHQXVBUYQFjAEegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw30eOy_kbphOz3uXjdEnufZ&cf=1
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This is also not evidence. It's a collection of anecdotal statements from presumably unqualified individuals, published by a site described by Media Bias as right-biased with "mixed" factual reporting (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-signal/). You might as well link me to a YouTube comments section.
Seriously, dude. If you're not interested in a civil debate, just say so. But evidence doesn't go away if you ignore it.
You're retreating into echo chambers - like that link you sent me - full of people that think like you and confirm what you already believe. Listening to them make you feel righteous and superior - so many people agree with you, so you must be right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a bit slow or has an agenda. Right? I get that. It's natural. People don't like having to question their beliefs, and it's so much easier to stick with what you know, or what you think you know.
But just because it's common doesn't mean it isn't problematic. This kind of reasoning - retreating into echo chambers and ignoring evidence - is what enables anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and the essential oil people, tricks normally smart individuals into cults and scams, and generally spreads ignorance. Even if you are right about trans people in sports, what you're doing will still be problematic. Not just because you're unable to accept new evidence, but also because you'll never be able to convince anyone else you're right if your only response to their arguments is referring them to other people that agree with you, or telling them they're stupid. There's nothing to be ashamed of in taking a step back and reassessing your beliefs - even if you ultimately decide that they're right. You throw shade on religious people for believing things without evidence - so why not practice what you preach? Pun intended. Be skeptical. It's a good trait to have.
If it makes you feel better about it, you can be a conservative and still form your own opinions about things. I mean, most conservatives are traditional Christians, but you rejected that and became an atheist because it felt right to you. You don't have to consult the hive mind for every belief you hold. I don't. I'm a liberal, but also I'm a gun owner and I don't think hate speech should be illegal (unless it directly threatens or encourages violence). Frankly, you never seemed particularly conservative on social issues in the first place.
Read my comment here, by the way, although I suspect you already did and just don't want to acknowledge it: https://www.isitnormal.com/post/iin-i-feel-superior-to-women-287017/comment/2888250
The link didn't work. Most of the claims I "made up" came from the video you refused to watch I linked and the sources they cited.
Here is a fairly politically neutral fitness site and their info. The links to studies are at the bottom in case that's the only thing you care about.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.t-nation.com/opinion/trans-athletes-the-death-of-womens-sports&ved=2ahUKEwiz4ev_0qPkAhUQIqwKHU4jABIQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1qKC-1aNxL53tgM04QhPre
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I see two articles from scientific journals in that bibliography, neither of which are directly relevant to transgender athletes. I'm really not buying it. I'll accept evidence that you can find - but I don't see any so far.
Which link doesn't work? I might be able to fix that.
--
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I've now read 4 articles making that case and they all state that HRT lowers the advantages. But that's not what I'm debating. It does not lower it all the way we at least need a separate section for trans athletes. How many sources do you want me to find?
The second link worked but they think only testosterone matters which is wrong.
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Articles != scientific evidence. I've yet to see a single scientific study from you that backs up that idea. So far, you've linked a random YouTube video that cites no sources and an opinion piece by a fitness site that cites few relevant sources (and no relevant studies). I'm not sure what you mean by "how many sources do you want me to find" since you've hardly found any. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly have no idea what you're getting at.
Also, I hate to repeat myself, but I feel like you've just ignored everything I've presented. So here goes...
2016 systematic review of multiple studies that concludes transwomen have no significant advantage (and that transgender people face extra challenges in sports including discrimination and transphobia): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y
Recent study on the performance of transgender distance runners that shows that transwomen have similar competitiveness before and after transitioning (i.e. you are in the 25th percentile as a cis man competing in male competitions, transition, and continue to be in the 25th percentile as a trans woman competing in female competitions - basically, no advantage): https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes?category_id=common-ground-publishing
Article by transgender physicist that states "hormone therapy for trans women typically involves a testosterone-blocking drug plus an estrogen supplement. As their testosterone levels approach female norms, trans women see a decrease in muscle mass, bone density and the proportion of oxygen-carrying red cells in their blood. The estrogen, meanwhile, boosts fat storage, especially around the hips. Together, these changes lead to a loss of speed, strength and endurance — all key components of athleticism." (not just testosterone - not sure where you're getting that from): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-edge-i-sure-dont/2015/04/01/ccacb1da-c68e-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html
Article by PhD student that summarizes the available evidence, and gives alternatives to discriminating against trans people: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/
I could find more articles, but I'd rather focus on the evidence over opinion pieces - and once again, here's that review (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y) on every relevant study before 2016 the authors could find. (I did some basic background work to make sure this is a real article, but if you find anything that suggests it's unreliable, please do tell me).
I try to keep an open mind, and I hope you will too.
--
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
If you ignore all my sources all ignore all yours. I know enough about this to make up my own mind. Trans athletes need to compete against other trans athletes to make sure it's fair. I really would love to meet some irl who thinks this so I can make them look stupid but I haven't found anyone. To me it's common sense.
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
I did not ignore your sources, I explained why they're not reliable - for example, the fact that neither of them cited a relevant scientific study. There's a difference. If I link a blog post by some random dude saying that transwomen can shoot lasers from their eyes, you can tell me that's unverified bullshit coming from a completely unreliable source, and that would be a perfectly valid response. "This isn't a reliable source because X, Y and Z" (or "my evidence is more reliable because X, Y and Z") is a reasonable rebuttal / criticism that we can debate. "I'm ignoring your evidence" is not.
Intuition isn't always correct. Plenty of "common sense" is actually wrong - here's an AskReddit thread of people sharing facts that go against intuition - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b3hs98/what_common_sense_is_actually_wrong/. (This isn't actually important evidence or anything so you don't have to read it, but it might be interesting.)
"I know enough about this to make up my own mind."
This boils down to "I know I'm right because I know I'm right." It's circular reasoning that helps nobody. Pretty much everyone is confident in their beliefs - and if we always assumed we're right and refused to change our minds even in the face of evidence to the contrary, there would never be any progress. Admittedly, a lot of people struggle with it, me included. I do my best to keep an open mind about things, and look for reliable evidence instead of confirmation. I'm not perfect and I'm often more stubborn about my beliefs than I should be, but I try.
Don't debate to "make the other person look stupid", debate to find the truth. It's not shameful to be wrong about something. We all are at some point. It's shameful to be unwilling to learn. Don't place your ego over the truth. I've talked to you on here before, you seem like a smart person. You're better than this, dude. Keep an open mind. Accept that you're wrong sometimes - maybe about this, maybe not - and don't be willfully ignorant.