Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:59:49 UTC No. 16162409

>>16160998
the times has fallen on hard times

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:03:03 UTC No. 16162415

>>16160998
transwomen = men
so they're saying they've revealed differences between men and trannies(men), therefore troons should compete with women and not with other men.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:06:01 UTC No. 16162419

>>16162415
The 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]

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:34:08 UTC No. 16162451

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029
Such 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=0.045
So 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)
ibid

Seriously, how the fuck did this shit pass peer review?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:48:28 UTC No. 16162461

Is this a normal thing to include in papers now? I thought this section is traditionally labeled "conflicts of interest".

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:52:11 UTC No. 16162466

>>16162451
>>16162461
Absolute dumpster fire

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:00:17 UTC No. 16162473

>>Data availability statement
>Data are available on reasonable request.
??????

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:07:24 UTC No. 16162482

>>16162473
what is reasonable request?
does this mean they can arbitrary deny to provide the data?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:39:32 UTC No. 16162536

>>16162451
>>16162461
>>16162473
How do we purge these lunatics from science?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:46:47 UTC No. 16162540

>>16162482
It 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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:57:28 UTC No. 16162549

>>16160998
Since 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' ?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:49:07 UTC No. 16162807

>>16162461
Well at least they’re including it, regardless of which section it’s in.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:58:30 UTC No. 16163367

>>16160998

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 18:55:10 UTC No. 16164378

>>16163367
haha yeah

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 19:04:26 UTC No. 16164405

>>16162461
and into the trash this """""study""""" goes

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 19:04:41 UTC No. 16164407

>>16160998
Now repeat the study between Women and "Trans women" (no such thing).

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 19:05:57 UTC No. 16164411

>>16162461
>The global south
A new code word for retarded shitskins just dropped. My only question is, does this include Australians?

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 19:30:50 UTC No. 16164469

>>16162461
Lol wtf

So glad I treat these people like slaves. No reason to see them as humans

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 07:00:53 UTC No. 16165395

>>16160998
What is soience though this is the science board

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 16:27:05 UTC No. 16166014

>>16162451
They 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.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:36:31 UTC No. 16166320

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.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:46:53 UTC No. 16166343

>>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.