Good article, although hormone treatment does not undo the strength advantages males generally have over females. Besides stature and wingspan, cardiovascular capacity and many other traits encoded in our genes programmed by millennia of evolution can't be undone by pharmaceutical or surgical intervention. Here's why- https://normanjansen.substack.com/p/fairness-for-female-athletes
Hormones do much more for muscle mass than they do for frame size. I've seen studies implying that hormones do bring muscle mass to rough equivalence, but none that address the issue of frame size that is obviously important in some sports (and may be more subtly in others) or the issue in chess competition.
As someone on the Left I need use the clearest examples and make the most defendable claims to deal with rational critics on my side.
I'm with you on the need for clear examples to deal with critics, including those who deny the impact of human growth hormone and other biochemicals on frame size (largely genetically programmed) although I agree frame size is pretty well set after going through puberty. The studies I've seen regarding hormone therapy bringing muscle mass into "rough equivalence" use a very loose definition of "rough equivalence" and neglect other relevant metrics like cardiovascular capacity and aggressiveness even though of course the statistical distributions overlap. I'm concerned about the groupthink so prevalent among scientists regarding the difference in athletic performance between males and females even before high school and college. Look at young K-3 kids playing soccer at recess well before puberty. I have a hard time understanding why scientists don't understand the data and logic as clearly as non-scientists like Caitlyn Jenner and Martina Navratilova.
I'd like to think so too, however experience shows us that some males are known to "game the system" to their advantage in remarkable ways when it comes to competition...
Good article, although hormone treatment does not undo the strength advantages males generally have over females. Besides stature and wingspan, cardiovascular capacity and many other traits encoded in our genes programmed by millennia of evolution can't be undone by pharmaceutical or surgical intervention. Here's why- https://normanjansen.substack.com/p/fairness-for-female-athletes
Hormones do much more for muscle mass than they do for frame size. I've seen studies implying that hormones do bring muscle mass to rough equivalence, but none that address the issue of frame size that is obviously important in some sports (and may be more subtly in others) or the issue in chess competition.
As someone on the Left I need use the clearest examples and make the most defendable claims to deal with rational critics on my side.
I'm with you on the need for clear examples to deal with critics, including those who deny the impact of human growth hormone and other biochemicals on frame size (largely genetically programmed) although I agree frame size is pretty well set after going through puberty. The studies I've seen regarding hormone therapy bringing muscle mass into "rough equivalence" use a very loose definition of "rough equivalence" and neglect other relevant metrics like cardiovascular capacity and aggressiveness even though of course the statistical distributions overlap. I'm concerned about the groupthink so prevalent among scientists regarding the difference in athletic performance between males and females even before high school and college. Look at young K-3 kids playing soccer at recess well before puberty. I have a hard time understanding why scientists don't understand the data and logic as clearly as non-scientists like Caitlyn Jenner and Martina Navratilova.
However, I think no one goes through transexuality just to win sports 😅
I'd like to think so too, however experience shows us that some males are known to "game the system" to their advantage in remarkable ways when it comes to competition...