BC TRANSGENDER
Saved by @Alex1Powell

Here follows my quick first thoughts of Roberts et al., 2020.

I predict this paper will generate much discussion over the coming weeks and months.

 The link to the paper is here:

https://t.co/iK6vmw9ixz
The authors studied 46 transwomen (TW) and 29 transmen (TM), majority in active service with the US Air Force.

Highly-active people, albeit not specifically-trained athletes. Mean age 26.6 yrs +/- 5.5 yrs.
Transgender officers were treated along standard hormone regimes. There is “documented suppression” of testosterone in TW but no raw numbers. Similarly, there are no raw numbers for TM.
USAF officers are subject to annual fitness tests, comprising push-up/sit-up reps per minute and a timed 1.5 mile run.

The performance of TW/TM over 30 months of treatment was retrieved from official records and compared with pre-treatment “baseline” performance.
Because these fitness tests are scheduled annually for large groups, data from TW/TM are presented as year cohorts. So, 0-1 yrs covers those who had been on hormone treatment 1-365 days. And so on.

(I think I’m reading that correctly...)
The performance data is charted in Figure 2. The raw numbers are in stable 4.
First, push-ups (top panel).

TW were weaker than control men (CM) pre-treatment and throughout transition. The authors speculate this may be explained by aversion to upper body training and its aesthetic outcomes.
TW retained +30% advantage over control women (CW) to 2 yrs transition, then converged sharply with female performance metrics at 2+ yrs, with the final measurement showing +5% advantage over CW.
Next, sit ups (middle panel).

TW were equivalent to CM pre-treatment and to 2 yrs of transition. The authors argue that there is no clear aversion to abdominal training and its effect on body shape.
TW retained +10% advantage over CW to 2 yrs transition, then, as for push ups, converged sharply with female performance metrics at 2+ yrs, with the final measurement showing a slight disadvantage for TW.
Finally running (bottom panel).

This is where it gets really interesting. While TW clearly lose speed from baseline, they appear to recover some speed after 2yrs.
TW retain running advantage over CW past 2 yrs of transition. The final measurements show a performance loss of 8% from baseline time, and retained advantage over females of +10% after 2 yrs.
The authors attribute this to: “height, pelvic architecture and leg bones in the lower limbs that confer an athletic advantage to males after puberty” that “do not respond to changes in testosterone exposure among post-pubertal adults.”
Any runners here know it’s tricky to artificially shorten stride or slow natural cadence (more so than lengthening or speeding up). In fact, it may be painful to do so.
This paints a picture of TW who simply can’t help but run at a pace faster than female average, even if they are genuinely as weak as females in terms of muscular endurance.

Note: ‘weak’ is relative. These females are pretty hardcore :)
Some comments on the tests.

The push-up/sit-up data are interesting. These fitness tests come with targets that must be reached and the targets are different for males and females. My first question is therefore: after 2 yrs of transition, are TW are being set female targets?
There is little incentive for anyone to exceed the target once reached, perhaps evidenced in the very tightly packed average (no error bars?) for CM and CW.

Is it possible the apparent sharp drop off in performance is actually an artifact of the test conditions?
Another point of interest: TM *do* ultimately exceed CM performance.

Are CM not bothering more than necessary, while TM go the extra mile? The authors also speculate that, again for aesthetic reasons, TM may train - hard - and thus, genuinely outperform CM. I’m not convinced.
In support of my not being convinced, TM, while apparently getting far stronger than CM in push ups and sit ups, could just meet CM running times. Is this all about the limit of female skeletal structure, or are the push-up/sit-up data not reflective of true gains?
It seems that the data from push-up/sit-up tests has the capacity to throw up artifacts, and it’s a little difficult to get a real handle on it.
Furthermore, the authors note: “transwomen weigh more than CW = higher power output than CW when performing an equivalent number of push-ups. Therefore, our study may underestimate the advantage in strength that transwomen have over CW.”

Could be mirrored in TM?
And, of course, the authors note that these tests are sub-optimal measures of strength, more a test of muscular endurance, and can offer little understanding of explosive/max effort changes.
So, a couple of options here.

1. TW are genuinely losing all their muscular endurance advantage after 2 yrs, in which case the running data shows it is impossible to undo the benefits of a male skeleton.
2. TW are not losing all of their muscular endurance advantage after 2 yrs, and that’s evident in retained running advantage.

I’d argue that, when viewed as part of the ever-increasing body of knowledge, there is a retained strength advantage *and* unaltered skeletal advantage.
We will assume that TW Hb levels are female reference [robust response to T suppression]. Another question then: does the running data show that TW still retain CV advantage - larger hearts/lungs etc - or that, again, skeletal advantage is simply irreversible?
I will note that the running data was gathered from a reasonably-sized cohort, with individuals tracked longitudinally, times generated under controlled conditions, recorded and verified.

Thus, this study presents far more robust running data than that of Harper 2015.
In news that will shock no-one, the authors conclude: “pretreatment differences between TW and CW persist beyond the 12 month time requirement currently being proposed for athletic competition by the World Athletics and the IOC.”
So , yet another study showing that current rules permitting inclusion of TW in the female sports category are not fit for purpose. They fail to deliver fair competition, the ‘overriding’ objective for the IOC.

The sports feds really need to start paying attention.

More from Emma Hilton

Emma Hilton
Emma Hilton
@FondOfBeetles
@SaveWomensSport @jamestalarico @BethStelzer What on earth is this nonsense?

@jamestalarico might want to reconsider his sources, because attempting to legislate based on TikTok pseudoscience is making people look stupid.
ALL
Emma Hilton
Emma Hilton
@FondOfBeetles
@Hogshead3Au @BARBARABULL11 @boysvswomen @cbrennansports @Martina @devarona64 OK.

Fitness data from over 85k AUS children aged 9–17 yrs showed that, compared with 9 yr females, 9 yr males were 9.8% faster in sprints, 16.6% faster over 1 mile, could jump 9.5% further, could complete 33% more push-ups in 30 s and had 13.8% stronger grip.

@BARBARABULL11 @boysvswomen @cbrennansports @Martina @devarona64 Here is my full description of that data.

Example:

1.6km timed run (CV endurance)

The *best* 17 yr old girls are matched by *average* 17 yr old boys, and beaten, by some measure, by the best 9 yr old


@BARBARABULL11 @boysvswomen @cbrennansports @Martina @devarona64 Male advantage of a similar magnitude was detected in a study of Greek children, where, compared with 6-year-old females, 6-year-old males completed 16.6% more shuttle runs in a given time and could jump 9.7% further from a standing

@BARBARABULL11 @boysvswomen @cbrennansports @Martina @devarona64 In terms of aerobic capacity, 6- to 7-year-old males have been shown to have a higher absolute and relative (to body mass) VO2max than 6- to 7-year-old

@BARBARABULL11 @boysvswomen @cbrennansports @Martina @devarona64 Pre-puberty performance differences are not negligible, and could be mediated, to some extent, by genetic factors and/or activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis during the neonatal period, sometimes referred to as “minipuberty”.
SOCIETY
Advertisement
Emma Hilton
Emma Hilton
@FondOfBeetles
A perfect example of the muddled thinking regarding testosterone, advantage and sports categorisation.

‘T means better performance. It’s debatable whether that’s a sports advantage.’

🤪


From this article: @TheWillHobson

There are two concepts of ‘advantage’ used in the wider discussion. I think of them as Start and Finish Line positions.

The Finish Liners look at results - ‘no trans Olympians’ - and assert this demonstrates no advantage.

‘No trans Olympians’ is not simply a function of physical capacity but also participation.

Nobody from Bangladesh has ever won an Olympic medal. Does that mean Bangladeshis have no physical capability for sport, or are there actually societal barriers like money, access, sport as a low priority or non-Olympic sports prioritised?
ALL
Emma Hilton
Emma Hilton
@FondOfBeetles
With Cathy's permission, I have converted the stats from this paper into graphic form.

Read on.


First, Cathy reported the numbers and % split of UK males and females playing selected sports. Male participation is higher than female participation.


Then, Cathy used population estimates to predict the numbers of male and female athletes who would be eligible, under a selfID model, for the opposite sex category. Cathy calculated these trans athletes as % of opposite sex category.

I have calculated the trans athletes as a frequency in the opposite sex category.

Here is the data for transwomen in female sports.


Here is the data for transmen in male sports.
ALL
Emma Hilton
Emma Hilton
@FondOfBeetles
This is Kuinini ‘Nini’ Manumua, the woman who was ultimately displaced by inclusion of Laurel Hubbard.

She’s 21, and it would have been her first Olympics.
ALL

More from Transgender

sexnotgender.info
sexnotgender.info
@Sexnotgender_
Hi @youngwomenscot @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form in your trustee application has 'gender identity' in what apears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

1/11


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/11


Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.

3/11

You then ask, "Gender – I describe myself as: (please describe your gender in your own words)".

4/11

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/11
TRANSGENDER
___Exxstr_for_sanity
___Exxstr_for_sanity
@eexsxtlIer_ex
@Nancy_M_K 1/ Most of the people fighting gender ideology, like me, are left wing, pro LGB and also have trans friends. Very few of us are right wing. PLS see the thread below for the sexism and homophobia we are fighting that gender ideology pushes. Thread with examples
1. lesbian erasure
TRANSGENDER
Advertisement
Ross Tucker
Ross Tucker
@Scienceofsport
New study on transgender & performance. The paper’s title could've been “Significant endurance & strength-endurance advantages are retained for up to 2 years despite T reduction in TW: Implications for the assumptions of fairness in current policies”. Some thoughts to follow


First, remind ourselves of the principle and why the results matter. Sports policies have allowed inclusion of TW who lower T for 12 months on the assumption that this removes the male physiological advantages sufficiently to create fairness when women’s sport is “opened” up (2/)

The obvious (though amazingly unasked) question is “Is there evidence showing that this actually works? In other words, does T suppression remove the biological advantages that necessitate a separate women’s category in sport?" This is the question the study is trying to address:


The study includes 46 trans women (TW) and 29 trans men, all in the Airforce. It capitalises on the practice of physical fitness assessments every 12 months to track how performance in push-up, sit-ups and 1.5 mile run changes when T is either reduced (TW) or increased (TM) (4/)

The TW and TM results are, correctly, compared to ciswomen and cismen, respectively. They have data for over 2 million CM and 500,000 CW for these comparisons. So it’s about tracking the changes in performance with T alteration AND comparisons to the appropriate group (5/)
TRANSGENDER
Kirsti Miller
Kirsti Miller
@KirstiMiller30
”No child should ever be forced to live a life that is not theirs, I did and it nearly killed me many times.”


It appears that every time an under-age Transgender person attempts to access medical care to make their lives better conservative people try to say they’re not ready for it.


As an older transgender woman who waited until I my mid 30’s due to those same prevailing attitudes, I feel it’s sad right-wing people are still trotting out those same tired old lines.

According to them, we’re too young to know our gender pre-pubescent and when we start undergoing a puberty which doesn’t align with our gender identity apparently we’re still far too young to access puberty blockers to make the masculinisation process go away.

These people only want us to access medical care after the age of 18 and that’s when it’s far too late for many Trans women, as the whole masculinisation process [which we didn’t want in the first place] has already happened.
TRANSGENDER
James
James
@HumanGayMale
This video is full of inaccuracies, lies, scaremongering & gaslighting. Please take a look and report on YouTube, especially the multiple mentions of suicide risk/suicide ideation. Thread below with timestamps of problematic content. Please also

1:17 – talks about transgender children rather than having gender dysphoria.

1:47 – admits he’s not a specialist in endocrinology, paediatrics, psychiatry.

3:04 – gaslighting about free & equal citizens, suggesting there’s a debate about whether they exist as human beings.

3:25 – suggests children should simple have access to whatever treatment they "need" (define need)

4:00 – describes puberty blockers as “pause button” & suggests that once stopped puberty will carry on "in the usual way".

5:18 / 6:10 – promoting brand name prescription drugs.

6:30 - suggests puberty blockers used in transitioning is just the same as use for precocious puberty.

9:11 - one of multiple assertions that people are “assigned" female at birth or "assigned" male at birth.

9:40 - implies that intersex people are not male or female

10:25 - implies chemical intervention is a “natural counter-balance mechanism”

10:49 - “assigned at birth” falsehood again

11:10 - talks about characteristics associated with “gender” instead of “sex”

12:00 – says the way these drugs work is well understood. It is not.
TRANSGENDER

You May Also Like

Marc K\xf6hlbrugge
Marc Köhlbrugge
@marckohlbrugge
💬 I often get Q’s like these:

How did you get your first customers for WIP? How did you grow BetaList’s traffic? Etc.

Makers are looking to reverse-engineer success. I see it everywhere.

I don’t think it works that way and the answers to those questions are mostly useless. 💥

I have built dozens of different products over the last couple of years. The vast majority failed. 😭

Surely if I know the answers to these questions, but still fail over and over again, these answers aren’t that useful. 🤷‍♀️

So what’s a better question to ask? 🤔

99.9% of the questions I receive are about the products that did well. In a way that makes sense, because we quickly forget about those that didn’t succeed.

🧠 This is known as survivorship bias.

Focusing on what survived, while ignoring what made it survive in the first place.

The real question, what you really want to know, is this:

What makes @WIP, @BetaList, and to some extent @AllStartupJobs succeed where my countless other attempts failed?

What separates a failed product 👎 from a successful product 👍?

Honestly, I don’t know. I wish I did.

It’s like Steve Jobs said “I’ll know it when I see it.” 👀

Same is true when we make products. We don’t know upfront what will work. But once we see an inkling of a product that does have potential, it’s not that hard to spot.
STARTUPS
itrade(DJ)
itrade(DJ)
@ITRADE191
Here is the detailed information of about strategy,

Entry time : 9.30 - 10
Exit : Upto you

Strategy :
Sell weekly ATM CE & PE at almost equal price
For ex : Sell Nifty 17250 CE at 50 and Nifty 17250 PE at 48 so it will become short straddle

Buy monthly ATM or near ATM CE & PE at matching price (5-10 points diff should be fine) as hedge
For ex : Buy Nifty 17250 CE at 150 and Nifty 17300 PE at 155 so it will become long straddle.

Weekly Short straddle + Monthly Long straddle

Adjustment:

• If you feel slightly bullish/bearish then no adjustment needed
• If Nifty moves 50 up or down and sustain then just simply roll up or down half of qnty and keep rest of the quantity. If market goes up or down further then roll up or down rest.

• If Nifty moves one side or about to breach BEP then add equal amount of lot. This can balance tested side. For ex: If I bought 17300 CE 4 lot as hedge then add 4 lot so you will have only one side risk . Note: Remember to keep SL at cost price (only for additional lot bought)

Capital requirement:
2.2 L for 4 lot
Adjustment requires additional capital upto 1L

Note : High risk high reward strategy, please don’t execute until you fully understand. Kindly do paper trading or backtest.
RR : 1:1
POP : 45-55%
OPTIONSLEARNINGS , ALL
Advertisement
Sumit Grrg
Sumit Grrg
@sumitgrrg
These 10 threads will teach you more than reading 100 books

Five billionaires share their top lessons on startups, life and entrepreneurship (1/10)


10 competitive advantages that will trump talent (2/10)


Some harsh truths you probably don’t want to hear (3/10)


10 significant lies you’re told about the world (4/10)
ALL , MOTIVATION , BOOKS
foone
foone
@Foone
So there's a class of puzzles called "river crossing puzzles" which involve having to cross a river on a boat/bridge containing some set of individuals/items with restrictions on which ones can be on the boat/left on each shore, right?

and the most common subclass of these problems is the one where you have 3 items/animals to cross with.
This is alternatively called the "fox, goose, and bag of beans" or "wolf, goat, and cabbage" puzzle.

the idea is that your boat can only carry one item at a time, but if you leave the wolf/fox unattended with the goat/goose, the wolf/fox will eat the goat/goose.
and similarly, the goose/goat will eat the beans/cabbage if left alone

so you have to set up a set of actions that never leaves either side of the river in one of the lose-states.

the solution to this variant being:
1. take the goat/goose over
2. return empty
3. take the wolf/fox over
4. return with the goat/goose
5. take the cabbage/beans over
6. return empty
7. take the goat/goose over
GAMES
Christina Warren
Christina Warren
@film_girl
A brief thread on Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, the crazy con man who is now claiming to have hacked into the Georgia voting machines in Fulton County. 90s kids and tech aficionados might remember Jovan as the inventor of the CueCat, the dumbest gadget of all time.

Also, for anyone who wants to claim that Jovan Hutton Pulitzer (not his given name, but one he changed legally after the CueCat debacle) invented QR Codes: he did not. Like that other right-wing crazy man who claimed to have invented email, Jovan didn’t invent QR Codes.

He did invent the CueCat, a product that somehow raised $185 million dollars for a tethered barcode scanner for magazines and newspapers, so you could get ads from your ads. As I said, the dumbest product of all time. Good backup barcode scanners after they were hacked, however

Oh, that’s another thing. When CueCat was a thing, its systems were hacked. I guess that’s what makes Jovan a security expert. His bankrupt company from 20 years ago was hacked and widely mocked. He’s a genius.

In recent years, Jovan pivoted to being a treasure hunter who was featured on and widely mocked on Curse of Oak Island, because the man is insane.
POLITICS