Willoughby really is leaning into the witch-hunting.
Would you compete in an “open” category Jean? Emily is not male. She has transitioned. Maybe we could have a category for Terfs and Old Bags? Love to see you and Julie Binlid doing the 100m.
— India Willoughby (@IndiaWilloughby) May 26, 2023
The great thing about hateful, misogynist comments like those of Mr. Willoughby is that the comments on them can lead to good information sometimes. Like this excellent scientific review:
Currently, research on the sports performance related effects of GAHT in transgender women consists of a total of 19 published peer reviewed research reports. Sixteen of these papers reported on the changes in body composition (1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27, 31, 44, 52-54, 56), eight papers on changes in handgrip strength (1, 3, 27, 39, 44, 52, 53, 56), one paper on isometric and isokinetic thigh muscle strength (55), one a cross sectional evaluation of VO2max after 14 years of GAHT (1), and two papers on pushup, sit up, and 1.5 mile running performance in U.S. Air Force personnel (11, 36). To summarize all of this briefly, men typically have 40-45% more lean body mass than women, and testosterone suppression reduces lean body mass by ~4-5%. Men typically have 30-60% higher muscle strength than women, and testosterone suppression reduces muscle strength by 0-9%. For example, Scharff et al. (39) observed that before GAHT transwomen had a mean handgrip strength of 41.8 kg, and after 12 months of GAHT handgrip strength has decreased to a mean of 40.0 kg (it is important to note that this reduced handgrip strength was still in the 95th percentile for comparable females). Wiik et al. (55) observed that 12 months of GAHT reduced thigh muscle volume by ~5%, but knee extension and flexion strength were not reduced. Roberts et al. (36) observed that before transition transgender women members of the US Air Force completed a 1.5 mile running fitness test 21% faster than comparably aged female members and after 2.5 years of GAHT the transwomen still completed the 1.5 mile running fitness test 12% faster than the female members. Alvares et al. (1) reported that after 14 years of GAHT transwomen still have 14% higher VO2peak than comparable females. Chiccarelli (11) observed that after 4 years GAHT the transwomen still performed 17.7% more pushups and 8.3% more situps in 1 minute than comparable females. A case study of an NCAA Division 1 swimmer who competed in the men’s category, then underwent two years of GAHT (per NCAA guidelines at the time) and subsequently competed in the women’s category “suggest that the transgender woman swimmer had superior performances relative to rank-matched female swimmers” (41). Collectively, the existing research indicates that while GAHT affects biology, the changes it creates are minimal compared to the initial biological differences between typical males and typical females, which means that both biological attributes and performance differences are retained even after years of GAHT.
I’m learning things from it – like that sex differences in athletic performances can be seen already in very young children, and that even meddling with puberty doesn’t erase the difference.
No science, was it? Only if you ignore all the science.
An excellent link, yet even by shasing down these stats we buy into their preferred framing. Even if the studies had found performance down at the exact level of the female sex, there is still the matter of them being male. Poor performing males, even the ones that perform lower than the the female average, are still male and hence not female.
Holms, I don’t agree that the statistical performance-based argument necessarily opens the door for poorly performing males to enter women’s sports.
As a group, male sporting performance in most modalities is stronger than female sporting performance, and the various handicaps of reducing testosterone etc. may reduce the difference, but not eliminate it for the group. At the end of any given intervention – testosterone reduction, even puberty stoppage – the mean difference between the distributions is still greater than that provided by many not outlawed forms of cheating, such as special suits and steroids. That’s what the science says.
The TRAs have two distinct arguments: first, that transwomen are actually women, so ipso facto we have to accept all of them; second, that a given person is not a big threat and why do we have to be so mean. We shouldn’t fall for either argument.
If a particular man is at the low end of the bell curve for male sporting performance, that doesn’t make him a woman, and nor does it give him to right to compete with women, even though he might not be able to beat women who are strong athletes. The bell curves are overlapping, so transferring his category moves up his position within the performance distribution, meaning that he will beat women who are, relative to their real cohort, better athletes than he is. He may be a regional, age-group champion and not a national champion, but he still will have taken the place of the rightful female regional, age-group champion, who is a better athlete than he is.
There is no series of modifications a man may make to his body to erase the fact that his excellence in sport must be judged within the cohort of men, not in that of women. Demonstrating this with logic and statistics makes the soundest case against TIM participation in women’s sports. If there were no difference, there would be no problem – but there is.
Puerile is a good word, I agree. It sometimes happens with people who are assigned stupid at birth. He hasn’t managed to transition out of that either.
where does he get off calling himself “India” in the first place?
India is among the top 1000 names given to girls in the US, and top 200 in the UK, top 100 in Spain. So, uncommon, but not all that uncommon. Based on the list of well-known people who have that given name, it doesn’t appear to be connected in any way with ethnic heritage from the country of India.
it doesn’t appear to be connected in any way with ethnic heritage from the country of India.
You’re right, I think. My impression is that it was originally sort of a name of triumph given to the children by British men who served as the masters in India when it was a colony. Exotic, and supremacist, at the same time. To call your daughter “India” was to simultaneously say “look at me, I brought those people to heel” and also “isn’t my daughter special”. It has still carried on the “exotic” quality, which it seems that Willoughbutt valued when he adopted it as his own, and probably why it is still popular.
‘Indiana Willoughby’ might be more a suitable name – as she stars in a little epic all of her own entitled ‘Invaders of the Last Spaces’ or something. ‘Willoughby’ is an interesting name in respect of sound. I can hear an ancient voice in my head – that of an old Dorset or Devon working-man asking when he sees a dolled-up toad he suspects is IW, ‘Will ‘er be India, then?’
This linkopens an Excel sheet with the 100 most common names; the 100th (Valeria) shows a frequency of 53 537, 2.2 ‰.
I know of names such as África, América, Argentina, in Spain. They are very probably associated with the advocation of a certain Virgin Mary (a thorny subject to explain, but which gives names such as María Dolores, María del Carmen, etc.). In
this link you can check the median age of people bearing those names, which is quite high; India must be a recent fashion, since the median age for the name is 4.7.
I defer to your analysis. The certainly-not-authoritative site I had used for the numbers did indicate that India is a top 100 name in Spain for girls in the last six years, which appears consistent with what you found and which I neglected to mention. The number could also just be wrong.
I thought about writing “isn’t common in Spain yet” — maybe I should have. Because of those other names I mentioned, India shouldn’t sound very strange, I suppose. Thanks for pointing out the trend.
The great thing about hateful, misogynist comments like those of Mr. Willoughby is that the comments on them can lead to good information sometimes. Like this excellent scientific review:
https://www.sportpolicycenter.com/news/2023/4/17/should-transwomen-be-allowed-to-compete-in-womens-sports
I’m learning things from it – like that sex differences in athletic performances can be seen already in very young children, and that even meddling with puberty doesn’t erase the difference.
No science, was it? Only if you ignore all the science.
You’d think if Willoughby really wanted to defend the little bastard, he’d do a better job of it.
#1 Papito
An excellent link, yet even by shasing down these stats we buy into their preferred framing. Even if the studies had found performance down at the exact level of the female sex, there is still the matter of them being male. Poor performing males, even the ones that perform lower than the the female average, are still male and hence not female.
Holms, I don’t agree that the statistical performance-based argument necessarily opens the door for poorly performing males to enter women’s sports.
As a group, male sporting performance in most modalities is stronger than female sporting performance, and the various handicaps of reducing testosterone etc. may reduce the difference, but not eliminate it for the group. At the end of any given intervention – testosterone reduction, even puberty stoppage – the mean difference between the distributions is still greater than that provided by many not outlawed forms of cheating, such as special suits and steroids. That’s what the science says.
The TRAs have two distinct arguments: first, that transwomen are actually women, so ipso facto we have to accept all of them; second, that a given person is not a big threat and why do we have to be so mean. We shouldn’t fall for either argument.
If a particular man is at the low end of the bell curve for male sporting performance, that doesn’t make him a woman, and nor does it give him to right to compete with women, even though he might not be able to beat women who are strong athletes. The bell curves are overlapping, so transferring his category moves up his position within the performance distribution, meaning that he will beat women who are, relative to their real cohort, better athletes than he is. He may be a regional, age-group champion and not a national champion, but he still will have taken the place of the rightful female regional, age-group champion, who is a better athlete than he is.
There is no series of modifications a man may make to his body to erase the fact that his excellence in sport must be judged within the cohort of men, not in that of women. Demonstrating this with logic and statistics makes the soundest case against TIM participation in women’s sports. If there were no difference, there would be no problem – but there is.
Heh, “Julie Binlid”. What a puerile* thing to say. I’m tempted to start referring to Willoughby as “Pakistan Willoughby”.
*Appropriate in two ways, since “puerile” means “childlike” in English, and “puer” means “boy” in Latin.
Puerile is a good word, I agree. It sometimes happens with people who are assigned stupid at birth. He hasn’t managed to transition out of that either.
Very Trumpian
I have to admit I have already called Willoughby “Pakistan” but then where does he get off calling himself “India” in the first place?
He’s used the stupid “Julie Binlid” before.
I think India Willoughby would fit very readily in either the Old Bag or Old Fart categories, or both.
He blocked me on Twitter for calling him Idiart Wannabee.
What an absolute grooming nightmare it must be to maintain the “India” façade. No wonder he’s cranky.
“Idiart Wannabee”, hahahaha!
India is among the top 1000 names given to girls in the US, and top 200 in the UK, top 100 in Spain. So, uncommon, but not all that uncommon. Based on the list of well-known people who have that given name, it doesn’t appear to be connected in any way with ethnic heritage from the country of India.
You’re right, I think. My impression is that it was originally sort of a name of triumph given to the children by British men who served as the masters in India when it was a colony. Exotic, and supremacist, at the same time. To call your daughter “India” was to simultaneously say “look at me, I brought those people to heel” and also “isn’t my daughter special”. It has still carried on the “exotic” quality, which it seems that Willoughbutt valued when he adopted it as his own, and probably why it is still popular.
Sackbut yes but Willoughby specifically. It’s adding insult to injury, which is no doubt why he chose it. Such a toad of a man.
‘Indiana Willoughby’ might be more a suitable name – as she stars in a little epic all of her own entitled ‘Invaders of the Last Spaces’ or something. ‘Willoughby’ is an interesting name in respect of sound. I can hear an ancient voice in my head – that of an old Dorset or Devon working-man asking when he sees a dolled-up toad he suspects is IW, ‘Will ‘er be India, then?’
India isn’t common in Spain.
This linkopens an Excel sheet with the 100 most common names; the 100th (Valeria) shows a frequency of 53 537, 2.2 ‰.
I know of names such as África, América, Argentina, in Spain. They are very probably associated with the advocation of a certain Virgin Mary (a thorny subject to explain, but which gives names such as María Dolores, María del Carmen, etc.). In
this link you can check the median age of people bearing those names, which is quite high; India must be a recent fashion, since the median age for the name is 4.7.
I defer to your analysis. The certainly-not-authoritative site I had used for the numbers did indicate that India is a top 100 name in Spain for girls in the last six years, which appears consistent with what you found and which I neglected to mention. The number could also just be wrong.
I thought about writing “isn’t common in Spain yet” — maybe I should have. Because of those other names I mentioned, India shouldn’t sound very strange, I suppose. Thanks for pointing out the trend.
Indiana Willoughby is MUCH better than Pakistan Willoughby. Much much much better.