Read on Twitter
There is no relationship between unaltered endogenous testosterone and sport performance. None.
I know. Surprising, right?!
http://bit.ly/transsport
Also, there's complete overlap of testosterone values for cis males and cis females.
I know. Surprising, right?!
http://bit.ly/transsport
Also, there's complete overlap of testosterone values for cis males and cis females.
In statistics, 'complete overlap' means, in this case, that the BOTTOM of the male range is the same as the BOTTOM of the female range (near 0), but the TOP of the female range doesn't quite extend to the TOP of the male range.
https://www.biomedware.com/files/documentation/OldBSHelp/Overlap/About_overlap_statistics.htm
https://www.biomedware.com/files/documentation/OldBSHelp/Overlap/About_overlap_statistics.htm
And guess what!
Low testosterone elite men are statistically OVERrepresented in elite male sport.
0.5% of ELITE male athletes were naturally below the average for cis female athletes.
And 25% of ELITE cis male athletes are below the current 10nmol/L cutoff for female athletes.
Low testosterone elite men are statistically OVERrepresented in elite male sport.
0.5% of ELITE male athletes were naturally below the average for cis female athletes.
And 25% of ELITE cis male athletes are below the current 10nmol/L cutoff for female athletes.
Who cares?!
Wait!
This means that for ANY TESTOSTERONE POLICY you pick to exclude 'men' from women's sport WILL. NOT. WORK.
There will always be some elite cis males naturally below that level.
Their country could just give them a 'Female' passport, and they could compete.
Wait!
This means that for ANY TESTOSTERONE POLICY you pick to exclude 'men' from women's sport WILL. NOT. WORK.
There will always be some elite cis males naturally below that level.
Their country could just give them a 'Female' passport, and they could compete.
This was POSSIBLE for both the 2016 and 2018 Olympics.
Did this happen?
NOT EVEN ONCE.
It turns out, men don't want to 'pretend' to be a woman just for sport 'glory.'
Did this happen?
NOT EVEN ONCE.
It turns out, men don't want to 'pretend' to be a woman just for sport 'glory.'
It turns out that unaltered endogenous testosterone is a TERRIBLE way to separate men from women.
SCIENCE!!
In fact, there is no clear biological list of features that allow us to even remotely cleanly separate men from women.
Chromosomes? NOPE
Testosterone? NOPE
Height? NOPE
SCIENCE!!
In fact, there is no clear biological list of features that allow us to even remotely cleanly separate men from women.
Chromosomes? NOPE
Testosterone? NOPE
Height? NOPE
Look at height! Also complete overlap. In fact, in the sample of elite athletes, the shortest athlete was a man!
This kind of complete overlap between genders is true for any and ALL physiometric characteristics you can pick.
This kind of complete overlap between genders is true for any and ALL physiometric characteristics you can pick.
Sit down. I have graphs.
I hope you can see a clear pattern emerging.
First, there's complete overlap for every feature.
Second, the RANGE within a single sex is much much wider than the AVERAGE DIFFERENCE between sexes. Like, a LOT wider.
First, there's complete overlap for every feature.
Second, the RANGE within a single sex is much much wider than the AVERAGE DIFFERENCE between sexes. Like, a LOT wider.
So the difference between the shortest and the tallest woman will be in the area of FEET, but the average differences between men and women are measured by INCHES.
This is true for all physiometric characteristics.
This is true for all physiometric characteristics.
We let 230lb women play RUGBY against 100lb women--a difference of 130lbs.
But you're worried about a trans woman who might be 10lbs heavier on average than the AVERAGE for cis women?
See, you're worried about something that is a full order of magnitude smaller.
But you're worried about a trans woman who might be 10lbs heavier on average than the AVERAGE for cis women?
See, you're worried about something that is a full order of magnitude smaller.
Seriously, spend a couple hours and carefully read through our work on this:
http://bit.ly/transsport
It has graphs and tables, too!
http://bit.ly/transsport
It has graphs and tables, too!
Much has been made of this data from the IAAF (this is my table from their data).
See, everyone only focuses on the (mis)perceived advantages of higher unaltered endogenous testosterone, TOTALLY IGNORING all the (mis)perceived DISadvantaged events.
See, everyone only focuses on the (mis)perceived advantages of higher unaltered endogenous testosterone, TOTALLY IGNORING all the (mis)perceived DISadvantaged events.
But as we detail in our article http://bit.ly/transsport
They p-hacked the data. Look more closely and this is MORE likely showing that there's actually no reliable advantage for higher T in women...and that the misperceived effect is just random chance in the sample.
They p-hacked the data. Look more closely and this is MORE likely showing that there's actually no reliable advantage for higher T in women...and that the misperceived effect is just random chance in the sample.
Everyone is obsessively focused on unaltered endogenous testosterone for trans women, but I'm here to tell you:
It is *entirely* irrelevant. There is NO relationship between natural unaltered testosterone in men. None whatsoever.
Wait for the kicker...
It is *entirely* irrelevant. There is NO relationship between natural unaltered testosterone in men. None whatsoever.
Wait for the kicker...
This means that there are elite male athletes with 0.5nmol/L competing with no disadvantage next to guys with 40nmol/L (that's 80x difference!!).
But that also means that there are cis female athletes with 3nmol/L competing and LOSING to those 0.5nmol/L men (6x).
But that also means that there are cis female athletes with 3nmol/L competing and LOSING to those 0.5nmol/L men (6x).
Biology is NOT as simple as "Well, boys get stronger than girls because they're flooded with more testosterone through puberty!"
That's a hypothesis.
We can test for it!
If that were true, why don't men with 80x more endogenous T via puberty faster than 0.5nmol/L men??!
That's a hypothesis.
We can test for it!
If that were true, why don't men with 80x more endogenous T via puberty faster than 0.5nmol/L men??!
Biology is COMPLICATED.
It just isn't the case that men are bigger/stronger/faster chiefly because of increased endogenous testosterone gained via puberty.
Shocking, I know.
But no one wants to talk about this fact. You're being lied to!
It just isn't the case that men are bigger/stronger/faster chiefly because of increased endogenous testosterone gained via puberty.
Shocking, I know.
But no one wants to talk about this fact. You're being lied to!
So naturally you're all like "BUT what explains why men are, on average, bigger stronger faster than women???"
The truth: WE HAVE NO BLOODY IDEA.
None. If T has a role, we have no idea what role it plays. We know, for sure, that there's huge variance in sensitivity to T, for ex
The truth: WE HAVE NO BLOODY IDEA.
None. If T has a role, we have no idea what role it plays. We know, for sure, that there's huge variance in sensitivity to T, for ex
Here's the obligatory note on why I keep saying "unaltered endogenous testosterone."
Well why is testosterone a banned substance, you're naturally wondering. Doesn't it clearly provide a competitive advantage?!
It DOES. Let me tell you why!
Well why is testosterone a banned substance, you're naturally wondering. Doesn't it clearly provide a competitive advantage?!
It DOES. Let me tell you why!
It is NOT because there's any difference to our bodies between endogenous (produced by our own body) and exogenous (added to our body from other sources).
Our cells can't tell the difference.
We've studied this!
Our cells can't tell the difference.
We've studied this!
What does matter is that EVERY single one of us has a body that is used to producing a given level of endogenous T (which fluctuates throughout the day, and day to day), but it's within a pretty tight range.
That's your body's 'set point' for T.
That's your body's 'set point' for T.
The reason EXOGENOUS T is banned (as doping) is that when you ADD testosterone ABOVE your set point, then you are able to get a likely performance benefit.
It's not because it's exogenous; it's not because you went from X to Y nmol/L. There's nothing special about Y nmol/L!
It's not because it's exogenous; it's not because you went from X to Y nmol/L. There's nothing special about Y nmol/L!
Remember, there's no effect for one person naturally having 5nmol/L and another person naturally having 30nmol/L.
The absolute values of an athlete's set point has NO RELATIONSHIP to performance.
The absolute values of an athlete's set point has NO RELATIONSHIP to performance.
But if you take someone with 5nmol/L and give them the equivalent circulating T of another 5nmol/L, then that athlete will very likely gain a performance advantage.
It's NOT that they got to 10nmol/L. It's that we've ADDED above their body's T set point.
It's NOT that they got to 10nmol/L. It's that we've ADDED above their body's T set point.
The converse is also true: when you take an athlete with a given T set point and REDUCE the T (medications, surgery, cancer, accidents, etc), then that athlete will likely SUFFER a performance defecit.
...this is what explains trans women on HRT getting slower.
...this is what explains trans women on HRT getting slower.
It literally has NOTHING to do with dropping below 10nmol/L or even 5nmol/L or even 1.8nmol/L (the geometric avg for cis females).
It's ENTIRELY that we reduced that athlete's T below their natural set point.
It's ENTIRELY that we reduced that athlete's T below their natural set point.
Also, EXOGENOUS T above an athlete's set point is dose-responsive: more T, more effect (not linear, though, and there are diminishing returns...and...like...poisoning).
Same with REDUCING an athlete's endogenous T from their set point.
Same with REDUCING an athlete's endogenous T from their set point.
So if an athlete, through cancer or an accident, say, loses half of their unaltered endogenous T production capacity...if we ADDED BACK what they lost via exogenous T, there would be NO NET change in their performance!!!
They literally studied this.
They literally studied this.
The FALLACY is when people wrongly extrapolate these facts about changing an athlete's T vs their set point, and thinking that athletes with more UNALTERED endogenous testosterone will have a performance advantage than other athletes with lower unaltered endogenous T.
NOPE!
NOPE!
So NO there's no difference to our cells with respect to endogenous vs exogenous T.
No relationship between unaltered endogenous testosterone and performance.
There IS a clear relationship between RAISING or LOWERING circulating T in an athlete from THAT athlete's set point.
No relationship between unaltered endogenous testosterone and performance.
There IS a clear relationship between RAISING or LOWERING circulating T in an athlete from THAT athlete's set point.
Also, NO your body does not 'remember' testosterone from 10 years ago
Also, I keep qualifying 'there will likely be a performance increase' for a reason. It's because performance depends on a HUGE swath of factors including training type and volume, technique, rest, nutrition...
Also, I keep qualifying 'there will likely be a performance increase' for a reason. It's because performance depends on a HUGE swath of factors including training type and volume, technique, rest, nutrition...
So for example: My body hasn't produced a drop of testosterone since 2013.
But in 2017 when I started training for track sprint cycling, a shift in training TYPE and VOLUME led to me packing on 25lbs of muscle in 4mo...with NO testosterone...and way lower than my old set point.
But in 2017 when I started training for track sprint cycling, a shift in training TYPE and VOLUME led to me packing on 25lbs of muscle in 4mo...with NO testosterone...and way lower than my old set point.
So this single-minded obsession with policies about trans people based on testosterone are COMPLETELY a waste of time
Yeah if you want to make trans women weaker, we know how to do that. But a LOT of trans women's unaltered natural T will be already below whatever limit you set!
Yeah if you want to make trans women weaker, we know how to do that. But a LOT of trans women's unaltered natural T will be already below whatever limit you set!
...I make a lot of graphs.
By the way, I know quite a lot of trans women who are SCARED to compete in sport post transition because they're worried they will win too much.
The funny thing is...they always find out, oh...shit...I'm actually shit at this.
Elite women are AMAZING. They aren't weak!
The funny thing is...they always find out, oh...shit...I'm actually shit at this.
Elite women are AMAZING. They aren't weak!
It's a misogynistic myth that an average cis male can just rock up and beat elite women in a sport.
12% of men think they could take a point off of Serena.
LOL.
No. https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1149699495002853376?s=09
12% of men think they could take a point off of Serena.
LOL.
No. https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1149699495002853376?s=09
Someone find that thread over 2 years ago when I challenged a cis man to undergo a gender transition just to win a bike race...and a bunch of us got together and promised the equipment, entry fee, and a winner's cash bonus.
Still no takers.
Still no takers.
Here's TODAY's long-ass thread about the 2011 NCAA trans policy and that we've only had a single Div II gold medal by a trans woman in all that time. https://twitter.com/SportIsARight/status/1358141850952032258
