The article commences from the premise that there is a great deal of controversy over trans women in sport (not exactly helping your case);
I've never denied that.
It continues by equating the advantages natural females may have in sport (longer limbs, mental strength) as being the same as advantages that may stem from being a “female” who was born male - simply not the same thing to most cis people, both female and male, I’m afraid;
No it doesn't. It states:
'Every day athletes are beaten by others with identifiable difference. And yet those differences are allowed.
It could be physical difference like longer limbs in sports like basketball or swimming; it could be better training facilities enjoyed by developed nations over developing nations; it could be superior mental strength over those who struggle with big occasions.'
Note the use of 'athletes'. Natural females are not mentioned at all in that passage.
It mentions Caster Semenya whom you have repeatedly stated is not trans (see my revalation below, although that’s more for my following post!);
She isn't. Nor does the article state or imply that she is.
It states the benefits of naturally occurring male hormones ingested in the years leading up to transition, which equal a larger male physique, bigger frame, yet also acknowledges these benefits are retained for years after “transitioning”;
Correct, it does. It then states straight afterwards: 'but in general that's the only ongoing effect … [due to treatment] their muscle mass and strength is reduced.' and later states (from the same scientist): 'but the strength and stamina will have altered due to her hormonal treatments' and also:
'Specifically with regard to Hannah, she's big … but one of the things is that she has a large skeletal system which hasn't reduced in size, but her muscles have substantially reduced in size and strength.'
'So she now has a female-size engine trying to move this big skeletal frame around and that is going to cause her some substantial disadvantages.'
It also directly contradicts your previous statement that testosterone levels are lower in trans athletes than in cis females - it says they are the same, after the trans athlete has taken a number of hormones to artificiality produce that result);
I will have to concede that point, as I am using a different computer today, and don't have the site where I found that information in my History.
It cites a paper from an author who moonlights as a trans female athlete (no bias there then);
'Moonlights as'? She is a scientist, and an athlete, and a trans woman, so is uniquely placed to investigate findings in this area. Are you saying that she's lying when she states: "When I started to transition in 2004 … within nine months I had started running 12 per cent slower than I had been before and men run 10-12 per cent faster than women — and so in nine months, I had lost all of my male advantage,"?
I note you didn’t quote the following text from the above article (once again, you fail to appreciate the importance of the feminism lobby to all this);
There was no need to, as overall, the views reported support the theory that there is no advantage, with four interviewees supporting it and one (anonymous) rebutting it.
It also somehow chucks homophobia into the mix. A complete non sequitur which has nothing to do with it.
Agreed. Not relevant and didn't need to be mentioned.
Care to comment on the above? If so, please really comment on it, in terms of a rigorous, line by line, analysis...
Done.
