@_Miatonin @AOC There is no no differences in strength between men and women are seen when normalized for muscle cross-sectional
https://t.co/LpI1KiE70c
https://t.co/qlYh39uwUl
https://t.co/OxpjyGRX5R
https://t.co/0qhYEqrhiB
https://t.co/QpnFskuaQf
https://t.co/qPYPQ0RDaj
https://t.co/U2HlVL3nTp
https://t.co/2PaxipfIte
https://t.co/EOH5dSHrxI
and
Pierre-Jean Vazel.
https://t.co/9rjHAMoRqc
But when she applied for a (TUE) for testosterone (which is a vital hormone for women, as well as men), approval took ten months instead of days or weeks.
https://t.co/EOH5dSHrxI
We do not, nor have we ever, had an agreed-upon definition of what defines a man or a woman that can be applied to all humans.
https://t.co/bOPXZcmGaS
https://t.co/7DlaFvjSSf
as the best performer among women of that age after transition. See Harper J. Race times for transgender athletes.
https://t.co/YbxZMslW2R
Even if it could be demonstrated that larger bones or lungs can slightly enhance the athletic performance of TW even after they lower their level of T, that finding would have to be placed in context.
https://t.co/LHvWYGk5J5
https://t.co/fMTheOU4bY
More from Kirsti Miller
Would having the testosterone limit for transgender women at 10nmol/L (5-10 times what’s considered “typical” for women) give them a massive advantage over their cisgender opponents?
Absolutely not, is recognized an XY chromosome body is seen as unhealthy <12nmol/L or less. A XY female as they lose the ability to produce natural occurring testosterone, falls into a range of 0.4nmol/L.
Which we know too, the individual falls into menopause at 9.6nmol/L, and due to complete androgen deprivation eventually into the position of that would equate a XX female = who had had a complete hysterectomy including her gonads.
We can be assured, one this is extremely unhealthy – Moreover, and most important, we can be assured that there are no women either XX and or XY competing internationally like this.
This is not for anyone a desired state and for the participation high performance sport eventually impossible to participate longterm.
XX women do not have their endogenous testosterone levels regulated in any sport. They can and do compete with T levels well into the normal male range around 13.7%. XX receptors are also 10 times more sensitive to T than an XY this could also be seen as unfair. https://t.co/PiERbwBxEP
— Kirsti Miller (@KirstiMiller30) January 28, 2021
Absolutely not, is recognized an XY chromosome body is seen as unhealthy <12nmol/L or less. A XY female as they lose the ability to produce natural occurring testosterone, falls into a range of 0.4nmol/L.
Which we know too, the individual falls into menopause at 9.6nmol/L, and due to complete androgen deprivation eventually into the position of that would equate a XX female = who had had a complete hysterectomy including her gonads.
We can be assured, one this is extremely unhealthy – Moreover, and most important, we can be assured that there are no women either XX and or XY competing internationally like this.
This is not for anyone a desired state and for the participation high performance sport eventually impossible to participate longterm.
More from Society
I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.