Make A Comeback wrote:
Make A Comeback wrote:
This is "her" again. I suggest you read the whole thread again. This is not an opportunity for you to show your dislike of women and your disgust for their efforts at racing, but a thread about male - female trans athletes in sport. Athletes who tend to be bigger and more powerful than the woman they are racing, due to male hormones that they have experienced through their entire lives. Hence relatively moderate athletes will benefit from racing in a class where the average is physically smaller.
"She" doesn't think being 5'7 would make "her" faster. "She" knows that the COMBINATION of being male AND 5'7 or taller would mean a moderate athlete would have unfair advantages over "her".
What hatred? I am just pointing out that being 5'7 is zero advantage for a runner over being 5'2 and just asking you to explain why you think otherwise? But instead of explaining why you start insulting people. Why not just post the evidence that backs up your point of view.
The question is a person who has taken hormones for 12 months still noticeable stronger? Is the Q angle for a male outside the range of females (i.e. I don't think so but I also haven't seen the Q angle for the starting line of the 1500m olympic trials)? And so on. The evidence either way on that is still up in the air at best.
Again note the assumption is that the athletes have transitioned. We don't know the CT athletes state but I am suspect if they are actually suppressing testerone and pumping in the estrogen for at least the first couple years.
Your thinking is somewhat muddled and I suspect that it will be difficult to explain anything to you.
I am not going to gather "evidence" for you (for the standard either required in court or what stands for evidence on the internet - the battle of the URLs) as I have a job, and better things to do than run around after you.
However, what lawyers do to is to take the relevant statistical "pool" of those who do comply and compare it to the other relevant group. Therefore, the relevant comparator is the number of successful male athletes over 5'6 when compared to the pool of women as a whole. Height correlates with other male physical advantages which are not affected by taking either of the two major female hormones (ostregen and progestogen).
Equally, the male Q angle will be narrower over the population as a whole than the female Q angle (because as everyone knows, women have wider pelvic structure). So women are disproportionately affected by allowing trans men with a pelvis statistically likely to be narrower (and therefore better designed for fast running) as far less women will have a similarly beneficial pelvic structure.
Another issue - don't male-female trans individuals typically take HRT, which is a tiny dose of female hormones compared to what biological woman actually have? I believe this was known because various 800m athletes who are no longer racing were found with them in their bags.
I'm a bit surprised at the lack of knowledge of basic biological body composition and why the Q angle and other features of male versus female bone structure aren't discussed more. Maybe this legal action will bring these important points into the discussion.
Your points are clear but you are arguing with someone who only understands what is going around in his own head, and not what you are saying.