Talk:Sex and gender in sport

At this point, it's safe to say there's transphobic concern trolling
This is the paperin question:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/#!po=0.292398 Epic Games (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a paper that's nominally about Trans women's biology... That tests "biological men". I really shouldn't have to point out the problem of a paper using sample groups outside of the stated research topic... 01:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah... it does test trans woman. Especially in the cited sources. Epic Games (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's citing other papers. Other researchers tested trans women. The researchers you cited relied on data from "biological men", whatever the fuck those are. 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No they took data from trans women! Have you even read the paper? Epic Games (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then what, pray tell, is a "biological male" or a "biological female"? 02:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats a pretty basic question, something that you should have learnt in primary school at least. Epic Games (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase the question then. Biological as opposed to what, exactly? 02:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposed to politics. Epic Games (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that you're acting in bad faith. I'll be sure to revert your addition if you try to add it back. 02:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have reverted my edit in bad faith and when I asked why you have only cried about "they is no trans women samples" and I show you there was you whinged about the definition of the word "biological male" and "biological female" which are very basic scientific definitions which have been accepted by scientific discourse for decades and you should have learnt in primary school unless you still believe that storks deliver babies still? Epic Games (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, biological genitalia and chromosomes, silly. Yes, technically even biological sex is not completely binary and can be a little more fuzzy than it first appears, but to me it's a bit bullshit to go all (cough) completely binary on this when considering crux of the issue here. Most males do, both on average and at the elite level, better than females in most sporting activities. Not too hard to prove that fact. (And don't get all "what is biological sex" for this, sports largely sorted by genitalia until recently, and still mostly do, so take it up with them.) That's why this whole subject of "transgenders in sports" exists. This is one study that says one thing. It is not invalid due to one term as I see it, which is "an abstraction" as I see it. There are stories that sort of contradict this study at the moment, so IMHO it would be better to search those studies and add them in. Studying transgenders in sports is difficult. The sample pool tends to be small for fairly obvious reasons (the deleted study certainly was) and biology is fuzzy. From my perspective it's an open ended question with no great answer currently at the elite level, at the moment. (At the non-elite level, who cares?) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Pan for your open-mindness. Epic Games (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, but have you considered that there are biological females and political females? 03:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion should've stopped at "opposed to politics" and this Epic Games user shouldn't be granted good faith.
 * As for sports, well... I just want to bring up that some sports value being lighter weight, and cis women on average weigh less. Cis women SHOULD then have a big biological advantage as a race car driver and horse jockey. Cis women and trans men should be dominating those sports? Right? RIGHT???? Oh we'll see what discussion will entail when a trans man inevitably becomes a racing star. 04:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean anything by the "opposed to politics" comment. I was just pissed off at GrammerCommie comments over basic biology GrammarCommie should have learnt at primary school. Epic Games (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh huh... First the "confusion" about gender, then the "biological females" paper... Really interesting pattern emerging there... 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Epic Games: Sure, sealion, whose username and beginning act has always been questionable since the beginning. You haven't taken any advice from anyone ever since you first came on here posted obtuse questions and continued acting obtuse long after the fact while dropping tactless comments here and there. Just stop your little circus, Epic Games. 04:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, women do dominate as riders in one horse sport and while certainly not the majority, have a few champions (period) in one auto sport in particular (drag racing, three women with NHRA titles). Obviously for some sports there might be more "social factors" involved instead of secondary sexual characteristics. (I mean, horse racing didn't even *allow* female jockeys until 1977. You'd think, with the weight thing and the fact that upper body strength differences really doesn't matter here, that people would've caught on quicker...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the gender manufactroversy of before it has to with a paper that GrammarCommie constantly whinges about. For some reason GrammarCommie cannot wrap himself around the concept of "biological male" and "biological female". A biological male is soneone with XY sex chorosomes and has the male sex organ and most have the ability to produce sperm. A biological female is someone who has XX chorosomes and has the female sex organ and most has the ability to produce ova. This isnt difficult and I cannot understand why GC couldnt Google it for himself.
 * I hope I have made myself clear on this matter. Epic Games (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * its interesting that for someone who has professed a lack of understanding of gender (and still as far as i can tell still has that lack) is suddenly an expert on all things trans related. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and still making debate a personal crusade at specific individuals to boot. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. Anything outside of an overly simplistic chromosome binary isn't biological? What exactly are trans and intersex people then? Minerals? Vegitables? Fungi? Lol. 12:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well they biological organism but not exactly biological males or biological female. Basically the paper compared sports results between biological females and transwomen. Epic Games (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot for the life of me understand why you don't want to place a scientific paper in to the mainspace. It goes against RationalWiki's mission. Epic Games (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 01:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record. I made a quick research. I usually do my stuff on Ebsco and JSTOR (I fucking love my job), but this one was on Google. I thought most studies would prove Epic Games right. I was wrong. According to this meta-analysis there has been no systematic review of the literature pertaining to sport participation or competitive sport policies in transgender people. There's also this article from SA claiming that there's no reason to exclude transgender women from women's sports team. GeeJayK (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the first giveaway that something was off should have been the TERF talking point "biological females". 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Im not a TERF. What the heck is a TERF? The paper you cited was from 2017 and my paper is from 2020/2021. Also the SA article stated that bullying and rejection was the main reason why there is little trans athletes not necessarily that biological females have beaten them.
 * Also quick sidenote to GC, note that the scientific paper use the term "biological female" not me. Epic Games (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article you cited, GeeJayK, predated the one cited by Epic Games by 4 years. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also have a 2018 paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics that has been highly critical of the IOC's policy surrounding transgender athletes. https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/6/395 It states "the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness" Sadly I can only see the abstract due to paywall. Epic Games (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That paper is really limited in its scope as it's mostly reliant on extrapolations from male physiology. It argues that gender divisions should be looked at and overhauled, as it's a dated notion of organization. IDK it's the same problem as initially stated, that sample sizes are largely from cis men. There's a lot of discussion revolving around the terminology of "intolerable unfairness" versus "tolerable unfairness" as well; it's really muddy and they considered: "In addition, if Mäntyranta’s genetic mutation or coming from a wealthy nation are also examples of an intolerable unfairness, these would need to be accounted for to maintain the skill thesis. Inconsistency may arise if we restrict transwomen from competing in the women’s division but allow those from wealthy nations to compete without restriction" 06:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you paid to acess the paper? Epic Games (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sci-hub. Though I don't think you'll understand most of what this paper is saying given your... initial impressions of not having a clue about this subject. 06:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you drop me a link please? Many thanks. I will see if I can understand it as I feel like I have a much better grasp on the natural sciences than sociology. Epic Games (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you please give link to Sci-hub article please? Epic Games (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To use Sci-hub, drop the link of the paper you have in the url field. Sci-hub is considered a sort of "piracy" site so I don't want to directly link. 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ive attempted to place the scientific paper into the mainspace and GC reverted it again. Can someone please tell that troll to allow me to place the paper in. Epic Games (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say put the url into the article. I said put the url in sci-hub. 01:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't studied the paper in question, but perhaps the problem here is not the paper but your claims for it. It is just one paper after all. Eventually there will be many papers. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * LGM, sorry I meant the original paper the one we were originally talking about. The link is at the top of this thread. Ariel31459 My claims and quotes come from the paper not me. Epic Games (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of all the times news outlets and morning talk shows will just take a random paper and blow it's claims out of proportion or take it with extreme credulity. How exactly am I a troll?  01:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You constantly revert my paper being placed on mainspace when no one else has a problem with it. Epic Games (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The paper has nothing to do with the media. If you look at my edit, my claims come DIRECTLY from the paper. There is no input from me. Epic Games (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like more than one person has reservations about this paper. And if disagreement is trolling in your mind, I don't know what to tell you. 02:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Epic Games: we like to take scientific articles seriously as we can. Please allow anyone interested a few days to read the article. There are many users here concerned about trans rights. Let this conflict rest for a while.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

(EC) You know what ? I am going to get very honest here. There is a more deeper reason why you dislike this paper that your not telling us. Facts and scientific papers don't care about your feelings. Gravity is a fact no matter if you are a Muslim or Christian, communist or moderate. Science is done through peer reviewed scientific journals. I here have been attempting to place a peer reviewed scientific paper into mainspace but you don't like it because it hurts your beliefs you have. Just tells us the truth: Why do you have a problem with the idea that transwomen might have an unfair advantage that normal women don't have? Epic Games (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will allow you guys a few days to read the article. Im just sick of GrammarCommie games. Epic Games (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, now you're suddenly an expert in this subject, I see. 🤔 02:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Games? I don't think I can run video games on mediawiki. Jokes aside, I laid out my problems with the paper. It uses suspect language which I've never seen outside of TERF and transphobe circles, and claims to measure average male athletes. Now, biology isn't my strongest subject (it's not my weakest either) but it seems like trans people might be affected by this little thing called "hormone treatments" which their cisgender counterparts generally aren't affected by. That seems like a good reason not to use cisgender people's biology to measure the biology of trans people. The fact that you think any of these concerns are political speaks to some seriously mislaid priorities on your part, not mine. 02:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * GC: Gleaned anything from the Journal of Medical Ethics? I stated my part, that my issue with them is that they formed conclusions almost exclusively on extrapolations from cis men and assume trans women have the same physiology as cis men. They DID touch on the hormone treatment part, but I don't have issues with their discussion trying to be inclusive and respectful to trans people but also discuss about redefining entire labels in sports too. 02:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the 2021 paper? The link is on the top of the thread. Im more in favor of that paper than the 2018 one. Epic Games (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) I've taken a look at the original paper (NB not in great depth) posted in this thread. It's a literature review.  In the first section, they examine differences in male and female athletic performance, and conclude that males have an "insurmountable" athletic advantage, based on overall stronger athletic performance and the stability of the performance gap over several decades (which they cite as evidence that the gap is not attributable to the lower resources for women's sports).  Subsequently, they review the literature available on the effect of hormone therapy on trans women.  They conclude that hormone therapy has no significant effect on bone mineral density or height, and small effects on muscle size (and strength, but they have much less evidence), ~5% reduction after 12 months.  They report that the muscle size gap is ~40%, and conclude that the effects of hormone therapy are insufficient to eliminate male athletic advantage after 12 months.  They report that reductions of ~5% per year are consistent with results of studies of prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy.  They report a single longer term study that went out to 8 years, and conclude that even that length of time would be insufficient.  I only skimmed the section on cardiovascular and endurance, so I won't comment further on it.  They conclude that the IOC standard fails to guarantee fairness, and suggest that their testosterone standard is not evidence-based, and that it may be harmful by encouraging people to seek out treatments they would not otherwise want for the sake of results that do not pan out in practice.  They acknowledge that there are no studies on transgender athletes and that (elite) athletes may see greater effects from hormone therapy, but speculate that athletic training may reduce the effects further, on the grounds that training tends to reduce e.g. muscle mass loss in atrophy conditions.  Since it's a lit review, the authors present no original research.  They do look at transgender people, it just takes them half their paper to get to it. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've given people a few days to read the paper. Does anybody have any problem with it? Epic Games (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to canvass concerned users. Do not edit the article. You may make a draft of an edit here. The review concludes that transgender athletes, on average, may have a competitive advantage in some women's events, or something of the sort., I am hoping you can accommodate the strictly scientific implications. also should to review the edit. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already have a preview of my edit. Just undo GC edit. :P Epic Games (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any updates? Have you guys discussed tge paper yet? Epic Games (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Give us a reason to take someone who unironically paraphrases Ben Shapiro seriously (facts don't care about your feelings was lame when Shapiro said it, it was lamer when you said it). From my POV you're little more than a concern troll. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh.... have you even read the paper on top of this thread? If not please do. Epic Games (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The most important part of the paper is, IMO, the correction. The authors are more than a little touchy about the criticism they received. Notice that they say their PR work is based on their own 'experience and research findings'. Conspicuously absent is any reference to scientific consensus in the field - this is how you know they're trying to advance a heterodox idea. The existence of that PR work is also a well-worn tactic. If you want to do interviews advancing a nonsense culture war grift, putting out a paper (no matter how bad) helps forestall some criticism. However, as pointed out earlier this paper does no original research. Which would mean it was a literature review, except it doesn't actually do the job of a literature review either. You're supposed to find every paper that might be relevant, and to establish by what criteria you are going to include or exclude papers in your analysis, a priori. This paper does none of that. It's neither new research nor a literature review. There's no way to tell how severely the authors cherry-picked their information. Without the thorough literature review, for all we know the majority of literature in the field flatly contradicts this paper. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The authors of the paper in question wrote a "lay summary" for what it is worth. The original paper has found it's way into sports science declarations, e.g., BASES, (Brit. Ass. of Sports and Exercise Sciences). Ariel31459 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean by accommodate the strictly scientific implications.
 * The authors briefly indicate how they selected their papers in the SI, and as far as I can tell, the journal is respectable. They also have their author guidelines available; presumably the authors were held to the indicated standard.  I did not find the correction to be touchy (maybe that last sentence).  That the authors are trying to use their scholarly work to advance a heterodox, nonsense culture war grift strikes me as an extremely bold inference to make on the basis of their stating that their media engagement "has been guided by their education, disciplinary training, and research findings".  Now, I don't have a great deal of time to devote to this; if they have made glaring omissions of relevant literature, having links to that here would be helpful, to myself and to others here. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At a glance, Epic Games's reverted edit is wrong on at least two counts. First, it is wrong about the year of publication; the article was originally published in 2020.  Second, it is wrong in suggesting that the reviewed studies of transgender people were of athletes; the authors acknowledge that the subjects were laypeople (I don't recall if it was exclusively or merely overwhelmingly, but it'd be easy to check) and note that this is a limitation of the data, since different trends may be observed among (elite) athletes. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  04:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that you were attuned to the subject. I do not presume you should do anything; it seemed you have a strong interest in scientific studies. Several moderators have expressed doubts about the motives of the reverted editor. Supposing the conclusions of the the review are supportable, should they be mentioned in the article? It appears to me there is uncertainty in some minds, while others may well reject them as ethically prejudicial. If they are prejudicial, I suppose we ought to say so here and leave them out, or else mention them with appropriate criticism.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with this particular paper is, as mentioned, it is more of survey instead of actual results. So, it is more speculative. It would be better to include actual results. We haven't had too many until recently, but we have a few small studies now. Here is a study, for instance, that actually monitored the athletic differences of 75 trans individuals in the United States Air Force who actually were undergoing hormone therapy. Although this study is quite small, it nonetheless actually shows results that both support and seem contrary to the reverted paper: over the year period, though the transwomen still outperformed biological women some, in many areas they transitioned to similar performance levels to cis females. Testosterone and muscle strength is not the be-all and end-all of all sports. A second study noted that, after 36 months of hormone therapy, while muscularity and strength were above cisgender levels, haemoglobin levels were about the same for ciswomen and transwomen. Which, for things like long distance running, is more critical. (One of the authors herself is a long distance runner who transitioned, for what it's worth.)
 * One thing I personally find silly about the whole trans in sports debate is, for many sports, while bio men may have an inherent advantage on average, in many sports there is a huge performance spread. At the elite level, a 10% difference between elite female runners and elite transwomen runners matters, and so far all I've looked at suggests that hormone therapy does not quite eliminate all advantages, so it's an open question for events like the Olympics. But at the high school sports level? Why? There is a *huge* spread between "average runner" and "elite". Elite women are running 14-15 minute 5Ks. This is far far faster than your average male who does high-20 minute to mid 30 minute 5Ks at casual running events. Hell this probably beats most top varsity male runners in high school, who I'm guessing are typically running at the 16-17 minute level. That "biological performance" aspect just matters much less at non-elite levels. The Olympics needs to worry about this sort of thing. Why do high schools?
 * The other thing is, human biology is really complex and a one chemical approach ("testosterone") in all probability doesn't explain everything. It was good to see one paper look at haemoglobin levels as another factor. I imagine that the subject is far from settled, at least at the elite level. The studies are very very small so far. I'm sure we'll find out more in the future, and it will take some time to sort out. (Hell the Olympics hasn't even figured out how to handle intersex individuals yet, that's been a known thing for decades, and was handled horribly in older times). Again, none of this should apply to the "high school sport" level for probably the vast majority of sports. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more of a survey instead of actual results. So, it is more speculative.  It would be better to include actual results.  It's a literature review; it compiles the results of previous studies, which would seem to qualify as actual results.  Insofar as the studies of transgender people it examines were not studies of athletes, it is speculative; but the authors maintain that this is due to a lack of research on athletes.

Maybe it would be preferable to use those studies themselves, but they are likely to be less accessible. The second study you cite is also a literature review. At a glance, many of their findings appear to be similar to those of the reverted paper. The Air Force study is also not a study of athletes per se (athletic though the subjects may be on account of their work), but is nice insofar as it was conducted over a longer period of time than most of the studies in the reviews. I see no reason why they couldn't be cited. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  16:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I have the paper please returned to mainspace now or does people still have an issue with it? Epic Games (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidently some do have an issue with such studies. One should reflect that the studies are not in themselves dispositive regarding trans-athlete's participation in sports. Leave the topic to more experienced editors. I hope you are interested in other topics. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wanna know whats the problem that these editors have with this paper. And no Im not leaving this to more experienced editor. I'm certain I can handle it. Epic Games (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't owe you an explanation, and you are in no position to insist on anything. Don't harass other users or you will certainly be blocked. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its kinda ironic that a site dedicated to skepticism and free inquire has fallen into such dogmatism. It funny that a site that mocks those with unchanging beliefs and crankery commit to the very same pratice themselves. If irony was a score this would be 10 out of 10. Epic Games (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yawn. Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki. Bongolian (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, Epic Games, so now you've gotten the clue after many many days of your topic being tagged with the concern troll warning. Idiot. 06:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have attempted multiple times to place a scientific paper into mainspace. Each time I have been reverted and was informed "Let us read the paper and make an informed decision" Yet, when I ask why these editors why dont want you want the paper in mainspace, they refused to tell me why. Its almost like they refuse to believe that trans women might have an advantage that biological women  (you know those XX chromosome people. Many of them have the ability to give BIRTH) don't. Some editors are frighten by this possibility. I thought this site was dedicated to skepticism but apparently your only supposed to be skeptical to things you disagree with. When someone shows conflicting evidence for a belief that holds you dear its "fuck we cannot have any dissenting opinion here!"   What the heck is a concern troll? You believe that I have a secret agenda? Well I have been 100% honest here.Epic Games (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. 07:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's even useful, but from what I've read, it is incorrect to pretend that people did not inform you of why they are not in favor of including this paper. From what I understand, I see 1) It's not clear if this literature review is unbiased or not. Finding a literature review is only one part of the scientific process: when an expert in the field finds a literature reivew, they also need to assess their trust in the review, for example by checking if the content is representative of what they have seen in their scientific community. You said earlier that you are not an expert in the field, so, just providing a literature review is usually not enough. Apparently, so far, this review is not badly received in its scientific community, but it is still too early to tell. 2) this paper is a bit strange because it is both a literature review not doing any new experiment, but it is also providing new conclusions that none of the reviewed papers are claiming. The logic seems to be A) some papers show difference in performances between cis-men and cis-women, B) one working hypothesis is that it is due to factors X, Y or Z, C) some papers show that factors X, Y or Z seems to be similar between cis-men and trans-women. The paper therefore makes a prediction (as trans-women keep the factor X, Y or Z similar to cis-men and cis-men have an advantage w.r.t. cis-women, then, trans-women have an advantage too), not yet confirmed by any experiments, but presents it as a conclusion. One can think that the logic is reasonnable, but the problem is that we still don't have proof that it is indeed the case (it's still not a scientific conclusion, just a prediction), and, worse, it relies on hypotheses that may be challenged, as noticed in the discussion about the fact that hemoglobin levels can play a role and that hemoglobin levels are apparently different between cis-men and trans-women. 3) Even if the paper is perfectly fine, it may be unwise to just add it without a clear context (as given in example, without context, it can be misleading when it concerns non-elite levels). And with clear context, the interest of the paper to the global discussion may just be too small and it will just muddy the water for the discussion.
 * Based on 1 and 2, I would say that there is currently no clear evidence and until then, it is better to, in a proper skeptic fashion, not to write text implying that science seems to conclude that trans-women have an advantage.
 * As for the "concerned troll" part, I think this impression come from 1) you came to this discussion admiting that you are not an expert, but still defending a point of view apparently based on a simplistic view ("primary school biology"), 2) you are prone to accuse anyone not agreeing with you to have no real reason to not agree with you except an ideological reluctance to do so, even when we can see that real reasons exist and that they sometimes have even been mentioned to you but you just ignored them. 84.69.51.213 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * a vote on the edit in question is a better option for resolving this matter than demanding to know to know when they can put their edit back in (as if it were obvious that it should) or insisting on why people dont like his edit (as if much of this thread is not about that very thing.) despite epic games belief they are 'handling it', they are not handling it. 'handling it' involves discussion and concensus building and a vote on the options if there is deadlock. insisting they 'are handling it' as if its their call to ultimately make, demanding you get answers already made with this thread, is not consensus building. its not even making a case. its being a pissy little troll getting pissy because they are not getting their own way 14:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the hypothesis in the paper is incorrect. What other hypothesis exist? 14:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BoN: we've tried, Epic Games still misinterprets us and baselessly accuses us of being unmoving ideologues. Being intellectually dishonest. Your post isn't going to have them argue new points. 15:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In regards to the BoN: First off, it clearly meets the sourcing standard for this topic. It is a literature review published in a prominent and reputable journal in its field. And its findings are in line with those of another review published around the same time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8311086/


 * Addressing your bullet points: (1) You are correct in the part where you said this review is not badly received in its scientific community. So there's no reason to question it. There has actually been more than enough time for it to be challenged if experts had reason to do so, as it was published well over a year ago, but that hasn't happened. (2) Yes, not performing a new experiment and drawing together existing research for new insights is entirely the purpose of any literature review. Unless you've read the papers they've reviewed, you don't know that those didn't also conclude the same things as the review authors did, anyway. It isn't the place of any RationalWiki editors to second-guess conclusions in expert sources. And the review discusses things like muscle mass, strength, and skeletal parameters, for which it is proven (not merely a "working hypothesis") that these factors are behind the advantages that non trans men have over non trans women. (3) We already include their recommendation that each sport federation decide for themselves how to balance different goals in line with the needs of each sport. That's context.


 * The text based on this source attributes it to the source. As a high-quality source, it would be inappropriate and fail to keep RW NPOV to exclude it from RW as though it did not exist. Epic Games (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "It isn't the place of any RationalWiki editors to second-guess conclusions in expert sources." "As a high-quality source, it would be inappropriate and fail to keep RW NPOV to exclude it from RW as though it did not exist." RationalWiki doesn't have a NPOV. We are not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are not binding here. Appealing to them will get you laughed at. 23:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a surprise that you don't agree with these three reasons to not add this reference. You can disagree with those, there is no problem with that. But if you are saying that people cannot disagree with you without being ideological, or say that those legitimate reasons don't even exist, you are just not a person with whom one can discuss. I am sorry, you may hate me or insult me for saying that, but looking at all the papers you are showing, my conclusion is that the subject is still being discussed and far from being settled, as explained for example in the conclusion of the latest paper you brought, when they say for example "However, before this question can be answered with any certainty, the intricacies and complexity of factors that feed into the development of high-performance athletes warrant further investigation of attributes beyond those assessed herein". Let's also note that your initial edit was saying "It said "the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected."", while the latest paper that you brought says "In contrast, despite significant decreases in muscle cross-sectional area, lean body mass and strength after 12–36 months of hormone therapy, values remain higher than that in cisgender women". You were going to inform the readers a sentence that implies that there is basically no change and now you mention another article that says there is a significant change, this is a really good example of why I think your paper (or a paper that claim that there is no advantage, by the way) should not be used (even if it satisfies the criteria to be a source, even if this paper will, at the end, be the one being right, even if the authors are being perfectly honest and scientific): it is for me clear that claiming a specific conclusion is just too early. A normal skeptic with no ideological horse in this race would just say that it's just better to wait, or to state that "we don't know yet". Why do you care so much to add this scientific paper? Did you come to the discussion with the idea that, obviously, trans-women need to have an advantage, because it seems only logical in your head, or get frustrated, for some reason, that it's not written on this page ? Or are you really convinced that the question is settled? If yes, why did you do this claim while also admitting that you don't know much on this field, and how can you explain that there are so many other scientific papers (including the last one you mentioned) that seem to imply that the question is still not settled? 90.242.34.235 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In regard to both the BoN and GrammarCommie. Yes, I admit that I am absolutely not an expert in this matter. That is why I purposely don't attempt to add my own opinion into this issue. I basically allow the paper to do all the talking not me. Scientific work is done through peer-reviewed papers in respectable peer-reviewed journals not by the "trans right activist". GrammarCommie constantly acts like he/she knows more about this subject then the experts do. Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, GC? Also to Thank you very much for your feedback to why you reverted my edit. Your input has been noted.
 * The reason I am so much frustrated by this because people constantly give their opinions about this issue without reading the paper. One person wrote that the paper is wrong because they don't have data about transwomen even though it completely false. Another user stated that my edit was not to be shown because it shows only "naked data". This is again false as I took the time to write what the data meant in between. Then one editor refused to tell me why he/she doesn't want the paper saying its "not by business" and "leave this to experienced editors". The one editor just started calling me names instead of engaging with me with words like "concern troll" and "transphobe" and then she merely vandalbinned me for no reason but in spite.
 * I do believe that people can disagree with me and not be ideological but has I wrote above I do not feel editors disagree with the paper for non-ideological reasons.
 * As with your statement above BoN: The paper has been out for at least 1-2 years and the paper has been largely approved by the scientific community and they has been no expert out there who hasn't disapprove of this paper. As written above, this is well enough time for this paper to be treated suspicious.
 * As for the comparison between the two papers you've made I do believe that papers are basically in line with each other since they both say that transwoman may retain strength advantages over cisgender women just to how much is different. Epic Games (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will ask you bluntly, concisely explain why we should listen to these people in particular. Anything other than that will result in open mockery and my conclusion that you are, in fact, operating in bad faith, rather than merely inept at argumentation and social cues. 04:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, actually address the cocnerns I raised here, rather than ignoring them so that you might argue mere polemics. 04:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do explain what these supposed ideological reasons are, the ones you keep vaguely gesturing towards as if to scare the reader. Go on and state them concisely and plainly, with evidence. 04:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And finally, since you seem determined to die on this hill, do note that failure to adhere to these tasks, or attempts to remain silent and cower from them, will be taken as a show of dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy and will be treated as such. 04:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Point 1. Why should we listen to them? Because they are scientists and experts who have studied for years about this topic. They have done research and had it placed in a respectable journal. If this make you feel upset and you think you know more than the experts than that's just sad. Again, I beg you to research up the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 * Point 2. Sigh, its shows that you haven't even been paying attention to what I wrote or what the paper wrote. Try again mate.
 * Point 3. I don't know what your ideological reasons are. I can't go over the computer screen and gaze into your brain. But considering the bad objections editors I have made (look above) I have a feeling there is a deeper reason why you are against this piece of scientific research. RW is for those who believe in science not ideology. Epic Games (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So your first response is to handwave and appeal to authority, not to critically examine the paper in question or to address my concerns. Point two is the same and is regarded as such. Point three is vague gesturing at some ideological aims you feel I have, even though you cannot demonstrate such. To proclaim yourself a proponent of science and reason would be an utter farce. In conclusion, you either can not or will not address any issues, and dogmatically retreat to vague and uncritical gestures at authority without engaging with any of the raised concerns put before you, betraying your own biases and asininity. You will get no consensus from me, and I advise others, on the grounds I have laid out, to conclude likewise.  05:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * your proposed change was not saying "transwomen may retain strength advantages", your proposed change clearly led the reader to conclude that science supports the idea that transwomen do retain strength advantages.
 * For example, let me craft another change proposal, that is not one I would normally propose, but that is as scientifically supported than yours:
 * Scientific studies have shown that while trans-women, following transition treatment, see a significant change on physical characteristics that affect performances, these parameters are still not identical to cis-women. But scientific studies call for deeper studies and state that one cannot, from these observations, conclude it is proven that trans-women keep a physical advantage with respect to cis-women, reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8311086/ 
 * Will you be ok with this change? After all, it is saying what the reference paper is saying, which is a respectable paper for which you have no reason or argument to "be treated suspicious". Surely, you should accept this change proposal, as it is defended by the same argument that you used.
 * But let me also extend on what I think is the main problem here: you cannot take one paper (or even one literature review paper), EVEN IF THIS PAPER IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT, and just use it to claim its conclusions are scientific facts. This is a strong misunderstanding of how science work. The scientific consensus is built upon a dialogue between scientists, this implies that different scientists will have slightly different conclusions (otherwise, there will be no dialogue. Otherwise, the notion of "scientific consensus" itself would make no sense at all: no need for a scientific consensus when you have all the scientifically correctly written studies that conclude the same thing). This is also consistent mathematically: if you randomly draw two samples from a same Gaussian distribution, the scientifically correct analysis of the two samples will be different, sometimes from quite a bit. Or, in other words, in 100 studies concluding at 99% confidence level, on average, one will be 100% scientifically correct, but still will conclude something that is in contradiction with the others (and it is obviously even worse with the paper you initially brought, which is not concluding at 99% confidence level, but concluding without any proper uncertainty assessment at all). And again, this has been demonstrated in this discussion as facts: you brought two papers, that we can assume have been written by equally honest scientists, and yet, one states that the transition treatment leads to negligible reduction of some physical factors and the other states it leads to significant reduction. You can keep repeating "my first paper is scientific", but it is still a fact that there ARE discrepancies between this paper and other papers. Either your argument that you can rely on one paper is wrong, or you are claiming that the second paper is badly done, in which case, please provide source of scientists that have badly received the second paper. 90.242.34.235 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not necessarily a contradiction here. A brief look at the second paper indicates that they are referring to statistical significance, which is not incompatible with the changes being small or even "trivial" from the standpoint of practical significance.  One could, of course, report some of the numerical data.  Alternatively, one could include language from both papers, which would clarify that this is an active area of research, lacking longstanding consensus.
 * Since Epic Games is incompetent to defend himself, I'll offer what I hope is a better response to GC's concerns (note that I'm focusing on the paper, not on Epic Games's edits).
 * 1. Why should we listen to these people in particular? You shouldn't.  But, as they are reviewing a large number of studies performed by field experts, and as field experts have extensive training and experience in the relevant field, they are authoritative, moreso than laypeople, and especially insofar as they are performing empirical studies and analyzing empirical data.  Insofar as different experts examining the same or similar sets of data come to different conclusions, there is no obvious reason to listen to any particular expert(s) over any other, nor to exclude any in particular from consideration, at least without there being sufficient time and data for a general consensus to have emerged.  If the language they use is somehow partisan (e.g. characteristic of TERFs), this gives reason to examine their discussion of results critically (I mean this in the sense of critical thinking), but not reason to dismiss them out of hand.  Obviously, the second paper can (and should) also be considered.
 * 2. Trans people might be affected by this little thing called "hormone treatments" which their cisgender counterparts generally aren't affected by. Yes, but the study originally cited by Epic Games does examine studies of transgender people, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. It does examine a whole bunch of studies that examine cisgender men and women first, to establish that there is a measurable difference in athletic performance between these two groups.  It also considers studies of, e.g., cisgender men undergoing testosterone deprivation therapy in the course of prostate cancer treatment (I think I'm remembering that right), which makes sense insofar as they are interested in examining the effect of testosterone in particular.  Whether interactions with other aspects of hormone therapy have confounding effects, such that the effect of testosterone in particular differs significantly between the two cases, is in my opinion an excellent and fascinating question, one which I do not recall the paper's authors considering.  Whether this is because there is some extant evidence that no such effect exists or it is an oversight, I have no idea, and that is certainly one component of a critical examination of the paper.
 * 3. I have no idea what Epic Games is on about.  I'm generous with my good faith, so I'm inclined to the opinion that they're simply incompetent at engaging in critical discussion, but I do have sympathy for the view that they are intellectually dishonest. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  14:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 16:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, engaging in critical discussion is a skill I sometimes struggle in too, and I totally understand the position that they are struggling as that happens to me very frequently. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting forward counter arguments to address my concerns, of which only one remains. Are the terms "biological male" and "biological female" common to the relevant field(s) that the paper studies? Again, I've only really encountered them within a transphobic context. 16:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I have no interest in dismissing this paper out of hand, more that I have reservations that I feel ought to be addressed, given the political contentiousness of the topic of trans people in sports. In short, I want to do my due diligence. 16:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I’ve seen it’s typically used in a transphobic concept but not always. However, some studies DO put it in transphobic concept. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is good practice but also know your limits and spot signs of intellectual dishonesty for your own good. I've debated intellectually dishonest users in the past, I've been told it's not worth it. 18:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not inclined to believe Epic Games's intellectual honesty for several reasons: the initial impression of a skeevy username (it's basically a name of video game company and distributor, it's like signing up as "Ubisoft" or "Electronic Arts". They also came in immediately showing some sort of intellectual humility demonstrating limited knowledge of something, with a user page going "I am very confused" and then started asking extremely base level questions. It got out of hand when several people got uncomfortable for their inability to grasp what's being explained to them and then say some really insensitive things. A constant pattern from Epic Games are these constant baseless accusations which I've told them to stop, which I still had some benefit of doubt. And in spite of their "please educate me" presentation and their attempt to say "I've been acting nice to people", they don't act the part in all. They're incredibly insistent on their interpretation or what they want an article to look like despite objections to their interpretations of papers, talking down on people and also continuing to make baseless accusations and fallacious arguments. That demonstrates to me an unwillingness to engage with any counter argument, further by this edit on the user page proclaiming scoring points against users rather than advance discussion or exchange ideas and arguments. I don't think it matters if it's just incompetence but there's a demonstrated unwillingness to engage, which is a hallmark sign of bad faith, intellectual dishonesty, whatever. I've put up a concern troll warning and I'm hoping people are giving that due diligence of what they're going in to. 18:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If this article is supposed to side-step possible questions regarding the relative abilities of different gender classes of athletes, then so be it. We should probably simply confirm that certain issues remain unresolved. I am fully in favor of removing Epic Games from the discussion as they do seem prejudiced in their insistence in making a determination of unfairness towards cis females. The facts and/or data regarding gender related athleticism should not be regarded as transphobic, though they may be inappropriate for inclusion to our article. Grammar Commie's concern is significant. It seems "biological female" is objectionable while "cis female" is acceptable to GC. The problem is that "cis" is a gender theoretical term that not only does not apply, but more generally cannot be applied, to the animal kingdom. This results in a kind of biological special pleading for humans.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're going that route, I'd prefer if we used the terms "cis women/trans women" "cis men/trans men", as to my knowledge "cis female" has no meaning. "Female" or "male" are still primarily used in biology, to my knowledge, minus the odd qualifiers of "biological". (As opposed to what? Mineral females? That still makes no sense even when transphobes use it...) 20:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's... Complicated. One of the papers linked regarding ethics also sort of went into income inequality in countries that also factor into athletic performance while talking about intolerable inherent advantages and tolerable inherent advantages. They were advocating for probably more broad and sweeping changes regarding not gender identity but more of weight classes based on some biological make up. It's probably a bit far off the scope of what we can say in the article. 20:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @GC Looking at the abstracts of the articles cited in the original paper, 'biological male/female' does not appear to be standard lingo within the field. Every abstract I looked at that used male/female used them on their own.  Searching the name 'Emma Hilton', the first author, suggests that TERF likely is a fair description.
 * @LGM In my experience, poor communication skills are fairly common, so I'm inclined to give wide leeway. Personally, I find the point that their nominal epistemic humility does not seem to accord with their attitude when engaging others to be the most compelling claim against Epic Games (the 'roasting' comment contributes to this).  Much of their other behavior strikes me as childish, explicable by their being intellectually immature. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  21:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The review that I want in mainspace doesn't seem any more dogmatic than that of the other review or any other source. Every paper and every review reaches conclusions in academic and in science. That doesn't mean we exclude them unless they all agree. By this same logic, one could make an argument to exclude the 2019 review thats already in mainspace instead. Of course, I would be against that also.
 * I strongly suggest you read the WP:NPOV policy (even though I know this isn't Wikipedia). Describing high-quality sources which disagree with each other is normal and common on Wikipedia. For example: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. So I recommended that we place the latest research not just my paper but others too in the mainspace. Good deal. Epic Games (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's both interesting and disappointing. I had hoped I was merely overreacting to some odd wording or technical jargon. Read point 1:2. RationalWiki is explicitly not neutral. In the event that there is uncertainty, it is best for RW to clarify where possible and remain silent where not possible. Our job, as a site, is not to give everyone a balanced say, but to call out bullshit to the best of our abilities. That is what this site is for, period.  22:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "relatively equal in prominence" They're not. There's your problem. It's an under-researched question but the claim of your paper is not the current consensus, the claim of the paper in the page is. One of the core reasons for RW to exist is because WP often gives undue credence to fringe ideas, provided enough people made enough noise about them, on the misguided grounds that editor numbers and editor commitment were a suitable proxy for accuracy. The WP article on repressed memories used to be a complete mess, essentially a hatchet-job on the person who exposed it as a fraud, enforced by moderators against people hwo knew better. The bureaucracy you're invoking is one of the defects with WP, not one of its strengths. The citation you're dead set on trying to insert is a fringe view. Let it the fuck go. Find some other article that needs improvement. I beg you, don't make us waste more of our time beating this dead horse. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No the claim of the paper in the mainspace is not the "current consensus" if it did they wouldn't several papers that disagree with it. As I have stated before the idea that transwomen have sport advantages over normal women is not a fringe view, it was written in a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a respectable journal for well over a year now, so any defects of the paper would have been detected by now.  And GC, note that RW has a "Scientific Point of View". Showing peer-reviewed scientific paper in a respectable journal  is completely within SPOV. The problem with the mainspace at the moment is that it gives the view that there is no controversy within the scientific community about this issue when there is. Epic Games (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They aren't mutually exclusive. Peer-reviewed journals still can represent fringe theories. Please see the numerous Jesus discussions back in December (see pretty much this entire page), as well as this discussion. You might also want to see these two deletion discussions, and this. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Two points. One, the term is "cisgender" as in "on this side of" "gender". It is not "normal women" and it is not "biological women", as those terms are so vacuous in philosophical content as to be unusable. Two, you did not appeal to RW's SPOV, but to WP's NPOV. That's on you, get over it. 23:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "No the claim of the paper in the mainspace is not the "current consensus" if it did they wouldn't several papers that disagree with it." This is not true. Peer review acts as a filter to try and ensure that complete tripe doesn't get through, but it does not work very well if a) the peer reviewers are cranks reviewing a paper by another crank or b) a journal editor with an axe to grind bypasses policy or c) everyone involved kinda phones it in. Contrary findings appear frequently; they are not consensus but the belief of all concerned is that they add to the knowledge of the situation, even if only by someone finding a flaw with them later on. Please take the time to learn how academic research and peer review work before coming back to this. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again if the paper is a crank, the experts (you know the people who know this topic more than we do) would have said so already. Note that they is 2 other papers I have cited which agreed with the paper in the top of the thread. what makes you believe that the paper in the main space is the scientific consensus but my 3 papers are not? Why is your opinion not crankish but mines are? Also,  stop changing the top of this thread. I am not a transphobe. Let me write it down in big large letter so you won't miss it. I do not fear nor hate transgender people. .Epic Games (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was a crank paper; that was one of the examples as to how not everything that survives peer review is consensus. If you'd read for comprehension, you would have seen at least one other reason. I'm basing my opinion on what I know about the current consensus as is borne out by best practice wrt sport governing bodies (it's by no means unanimous; to what degree that reflects science, the needs of different sports, knee-jerk defiance of change and straight up bigotry is an open question). Again: please, please walk away and find some other hobby horse, because every time you come back to this you make your claim not to be driven by animus towards trans people less and less credible. There is more to *phobia than hatred and fear, which you should know. You can be so without meaning to. If you really want to prove your good intentions, stay away for a week. There are far more useful things to do on RW than beat this horse again, every time you ignore them in favour of this it says something about your personal priorities. I've been changing the title back because I'm not sure if you're pinging GC every time you do so, which would just be annoying in its own right. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't pinging me, and I personally don't care about the header for the most part. The content of the discussion is what matters. 00:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting it back. I hate this libel against me. you should based your opinions on peer-reviewed scientific papers in respectable journals. not on sport governing bodies. If they was something wrong with all 3 papers it would have been attacked by experts already. Considering this hasn't happen we must place these paper in or give the impression to the reader that there is no controversy when they is one among experts.  Epic Games (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You still don't understand that scientific literature is not a dichotomy between 'bad papers that get retracted' and 'good papers that are considered sacrosanct'. Consensus comes from multiple papers reinforcing the conclusions of each other, and it's common for there to be papers with different conclusions without any of them being 'bad', per se. Sometimes it's possible to identify a weakness in the methodology, or the dta gathering, that explains the difference, but plenty just stay a question mark forever. It's never the case that you can point to a single paper, or a small group of papers, and say "These are just as valid as all these X other papers and we have to give both options equal credence". This is why people remain convinced you're not acting in good faith - you're insisting that undue weight be given to this pet paper of yours. Your high-handed use of must does not help, either. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

We'll continue this discussion without you Epic Games. Do not continue this discussion. 01:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven't we gone through all the points about the paper now? I believe we can safely insert it into the article. 14:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what gives you that idea. It's still a fringe view; we'd need to make sure it was clearly such if we slipped it in, and it risks giving undue weight to a fringe position. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Has scientific consensus been achieved about this topic? 16:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say if it's not already added, we can incorporate some parts of discussion the paper on ethics talks about, such as the call to possibly radically reclassify entire organizations of classes or bring up other uncontrollable disadvantages that have way higher prevalence such as income inequality across countries not to deflect but to point out that fairness in sport can get very complicated. 16:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) As best I can tell, it remains an under-examined area - but it's under-examined because it's not been all that long since trans atheletes were allowed to compete at all, and there remain significant non-regulation barriers to participation. There is no weight of evidence to recommend barring them as there is zero evidence that, specifically, trans women have a systematic advantage in practice. The first out trans Olympic medallist only came in 2021 and that was a team sport. The existing, permissive rules about trans inclusion has not seen a wave of trans athletes sweeping aside the cis competition - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It's not my field, but as I understand it the existing regulations were driven by what studies have been done, and are still being done, except in the instances where they seem to have been driven by trans-hostile political agitation. In fact, there's an argument that even the current most permissive rules are too strict - trans women are frequently required to maintain a testosterone level well below that of their cis peers (professional athletes being outliers anyway), and trans men are likewise restricted. This paper, and its cites, don't fit with what I know about the extant literature, and the level of indirection it goes through to reach its conclusions is odd. I'm not saying that it's what happened here, but if I wanted to push a viewpoint against consensus then cherry-picking indirectly related datasets and constructing an argument from them would be how I'd do it. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * THere's something I still don't get. What's so special about this specific paper? I posted a meta-research arguing that there is no evidence that transgender women have any advantage over cis women. Yeah, it's older than Epic Game's paper, but they analyze 7 other papers. I think we should use metascience whenever is possible since it's probably the best way to find the academic consensus. GeeJayK (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How fringe is the view, though? That matters. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bump this shitstorm. Just here to say there is another systematic review of the same topic, published 2021 in a reputable journal. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865 The conclusion is in line with the original paper in question. Both of these papers should be referenced and discussed in the article. I haven't seen any papers that contradict these conclusions. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This one sounds better than the other which, in my opinion, should not be referenced. GeeJayK (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I did read the meta-research you linked. It mainly discusses the issues around societal pressures faced by transgender people and how that affects athletic performance, which is certainly worthy of discussion in our article. But in terms physical attributes, it only references one from 2004, which basically says "There is an overlap between men and women in terms of muscle mass, androgen deprivation in men (or trans women) induces loss of muscle mass, therefore increasing the overlap between M-F and other women." The meta-research therefore concludes there's not enough research to draw any conclusions on athletic ability from.
 * We have better studies on physical attributes now. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The paper you linked looks fine from my understanding, and it lacks the peculiar terminology of the disputed paper, so I'm fine with it. Unless anyone else objects that is. 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, wait, aren't we part of the "trans lobby"? Don't we gatekeep ideas and evidence when they confront our opinions? Aren't we IrrationalWiki after all? Fine by me too. GeeJayK (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I think the original resistance to the original literature review in question was unjustified. Though Epic Games' edit was not suitable nor was that person good at arguing their position. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the review PanGalactic posted further up. I have no objections to it. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an unfortunate consequence of bad faith debate, though I don't fault any of us for initial resistance. 21:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)