After spending billions on research, soience has discovered that men are different from women
>>16160998the times has fallen on hard times
>>16160998transwomen = menso they're saying they've revealed differences between men and trannies(men), therefore troons should compete with women and not with other men.
>>16162415The issue isn't whether or not men and tranny faggot men have equal physical capability on average, it's whether or not tranny faggot men and biological men have equal physical capability [spoiler: they dont]
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029Such a bizarre study with so much wrong I can barely scratch the surface.>19 cisgender men (CM) (mean±SD, age: 37±9 years), 12 transgender men (TM) (age: 34±7 years), 23 transgender women (TW) (age: 34±10 years) and 21 cisgender women (CW) (age: 30±9 years) The sample sizes are small. The age variance is large. How do they expect to find any meaningful effect sizes?>TW had similar testosterone concentration (TW 0.7±0.5nmol/L, CW 0.9±0.4nmol/)Okay, so within three stdev implies "similar". Fair enough I suppose. No p-value? Interesting >higher oestrogen (TW 742.4±801.9pmol/L, CW 336.0±266.3pmol/L, p=0.045So 0 = 0. They're within one standard deviation of each other and this indicates statistical significance of higher? Wtf. >higher absolute handgrip strength (TW 40.7±6.8kg, CW 34.2±3.7kg, p=0.01), ibid. Within one standard error.>lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s:forced vital capacity ratio (TW 0.83±0.07, CW 0.88±0.04, p=0.04),ibid>lower relative jump height (TW 0.7±0.2cm/kg; CW 1.0±0.2cm/kg, p<0.001) ibid>and lower relative V̇O2max (TW 45.1±13.3mL/kg/min/, CW 54.1±6.0mL/kg/min, p<0.001)ibid>TM had similar testosterone concentration (TM 20.5±5.8nmol/L, CM 24.8±12.3nmol/L)ibid>lower absolute hand grip strength (TM 38.8±7.5kg, CM 45.7±6.9kg, p=0.03)ibid>lower absolute V̇O2max (TM 3635±644mL/min, CM 4467±641mL/min p=0.002)ibidSeriously, how the fuck did this shit pass peer review?
Is this a normal thing to include in papers now? I thought this section is traditionally labeled "conflicts of interest".
>>16162451>>16162461Absolute dumpster fire
>>Data availability statement>Data are available on reasonable request.??????
>>16162473what is reasonable request?does this mean they can arbitrary deny to provide the data?
>>16162451>>16162461>>16162473How do we purge these lunatics from science?
>>16162482It means data is available to friendly entities unlikely to call out errors but denied to anyone who might have reason to want to disprove their findings.
>>16160998Since you posted no link I cant know... but doesn't this headline rather imply: 'We found enough statistical differences between men and men who have had surgery and HRT to say it's fair to let men invade womens sports, provided they have surgery and HRT' ?
>>16162461Well at least they’re including it, regardless of which section it’s in.
>>16160998
>>16163367haha yeah
>>16162461and into the trash this """""study""""" goes
>>16160998Now repeat the study between Women and "Trans women" (no such thing).
>>16162461Lol wtfSo glad I treat these people like slaves. No reason to see them as humans
>>16160998What is soience though this is the science board
>>16162451They probably figured they were being smart by surveying a large age range, but the problem is such a small sample size makes doing that idiotic.
Who cares? They should study the difference between trans women and real women if they want to make the argument that trans women should compete in women's sports.
>>16162451>The sample sizes are small. The age variance is large. How do they expect to find any meaningful effect sizes?I've seen research with 8 patients passed peer review, why not this one? it's a decent size for their field.yes, "the science" is fucking junk, don't ask why. it's their own "peer" review standard.