Probably the most useful comment in this thread.
However, the article seems to say "not enough research" (I've only read the abstract and the conclusion, and both say this essentially).
Also, the article seems to be concerned only with the effect testosterone and estrogen have on athletic performance right now. But how about before? Do former-men become less tall? Do the soles of their feet become less wide? Do their bones become less dense? I think that was the issue that was raised in our comments, and the research addresses none of that (from what I can judge from the abstract and conclusion).
as i said to the other guy, usually only the tallest people become basketball players. Are you planning on segregating basketball into height-based tournaments to account for this?
Bone density seems to actually increase while they transition. There are few studies on the topic though
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160530190141.htm
and only anecdotal evidence for the foot and hand size, but they are within a range cis women can have as well.
Sports are based more on biological luck than anything, so going out of your way to regulate one group instead of every member of every group is just bias.
I agree about the biological luck factor. "Sports are stupid anyway" was my initial reply. I couldn't care less about sports, much less segregating people based on sex and luck.
Sports are largely based on unfairness, but some types of unfairness have been deemed acceptable via consensus. For example, it seems to me blacks are better at some sports than whites, yet no one's segregating them. Cos people are just like "ok, as long as they're the same sex". Tomorrow the same might happen with trans people. It's just a fiat majority decision.
I'm a liberal, and trans people can do whatever other people are legally and morally allowed to do. However I'm not going to claim that the science says something it clearly doesn't, and some of these articles were saying that the science says things the science didn't really say. :P
idk why you think i care about what sub-branch of neo-liberal you are. You are all the same to me.
I was mentioning, in case you stereotyped me as some transphobic individual or something, that normally I belong in the liberal camp, so my opinion has to do with common sense + whatever science is available, not prejudice, cos you did accuse the 'other guy' as biased, and I don't know what kind of bias that would be, unless it's of some kind of a racist or political color.
The issue here is quite simple but let me simplify it even further with an analogy, apt or not: if you take a thousand adult bulls, and get their average hormone levels to match those of a thousand average cows, will the first group outperform the second group in sports in which the bulls, pre-treatment, would have outperformed the cows?
Like I do when I debate nihilists (who are curiously always alive), I like to see actions, not words. So let me phrase it differently: if you were a betting man, which group would you bet would win?
The answer mirrors your real beliefs.
I do agree tho, again, that sport is riddled with unfairness and accident and luck, so concentrating on this particular aspect of unfairness (which I do not, I was merely replying to a question) might reveal some unconscious bias, or more probably unconscious habituation to long-established unfairness, as opposed to a brand new and therefore more visible one.
also the paper was talking about how the biological differences would not have an effect, without trail data from sports (as there isnt enough, as it mentioned in the abstract)