Of course CNN does the usual.
Some critics claim transgender athletes have an unfair advantage in sports, but that’s not what the research shows.
While research is limited and ongoing, a 2017 review in the peer-reviewed journal Sports Medicine found “no direct or consistent research” showing trans people have an athletic advantage.
No, dummy, of course “trans people” as such don’t, but men do, and trans women are men. It’s men who have the advantage, because men do have an array of physical advantages over women, which is why women have a separate category. Trans is used as a screen for that, to enable men like William Thomas to cheat.
Thomas has not commented publicly on the latest lawsuit. Despite
herexpressed intention to keep swimming competitively after college, Thomas has been barred from international events by the rules of World Aquatics, which only qualify transgender athletes who have not experienced biological puberty.The Court of Arbitration for Sport denied Thomas’ challenge to the rule, making
herineligible for most elite competitions, including the 2024 Olympics.
Any bets on how fast Thomas will revert to being male now that the cheat doesn’t work?
Comments
19 responses to “He had his fun”
“While research is limited and ongoing, a 2017 review in the peer-reviewed journal Sports Medicine found “no direct or consistent research” showing trans people have an athletic advantage.”
Was it that there was no research at all, or was there research done and the conclusion of the research was that there was no clear advantage? The wording is ambiguous.
I suggest that passage should read:
.
Done & dusted.
@Mike #1
I suggest it’s even more weaselly than that. It’s not that research was done, but it found no advantage. It’s that there was some research done, but the studies were not well constructed, or some studies conflicted with one another, or that the samples were too small, or not representative. Or that the studies were about men, not “trans women,” so the research wasn’t “directly on topic” for skewed values of what counts as the “topic.” It doesn’t say that the results were inconsistent; it says that the research was inconsistent, whatever that means.
Looks like CNN at least is going to ride this burning plane all the way down. Except when they’re quoting Trump’s EO, or the ruling, they use “transgender” or “transwoman” instead of male, refusing to acknowledge that they are male.
Here’s a quote from Thomas:
The very simple answer is that he’s lying, delusional, or both. And he was never asking for the “same respect every other athlete gets,” he was getting away with cheating and disrespecting both the women on the team he was allowed to invade, and the women on the opposing teams. How many of CNN’s readership/viewership know that Thomas is one of Keir Starmers 0.01% of women with a penis? There is no correction or explanation of the falsehood of his claim. to “womanhood.” Can you imagine CNN extending this deference to Rachel Dolezal and her claim to being Black?
And, as with the previous post “The rights of female athletes” part of Thomas’s story that isn’t getting as much attention as it should is his activity as a sex criminal in the women’s locker room. CNN’s tacit acceptance of Thomas’s claim that he is a “woman” hides the fact that he was a male invading the female locker room and showers. Way to gloss over the crimes of a narcissistic, predatory male.
I wouldn’t count on it for the reasons pointed out by YNnB #5. I suspect the part about cheating women in sports is only the second most important thing that attracts this guy to the womanface business.
Are only trans child athletes allowed? or those permanently on puberty blockers?
In the attempt to avoid writing “male”, they wrote a sentence that makes absolutely no sense at all.
It’s as maddog1129 said in #3: One of the conclusions of that review article is that there is no good research from which to draw a conclusion. From the article:
You can find the review article here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y
I have only skimmed it, but on first glance it looks like a LOT more time is given to ‘making trans people feel included’ than is given to the question of fairness.
They do refer to a study that finds ‘transgender female individuals’ (their term for males who identify as women) retain significantly greater muscle mass than in women, even after 1 year of hormone treatment. From the article:
Keep in mind the doublespeak here – ‘transgender male individuals’ refers to females who identify as trans, and vice versa for ‘transgender female individuals’. What they are saying is that females are likely able to compete in male sports without an athletic advantage, but there is uncertainty whether males can compete in female sports without an athletic advantage. Somehow they don’t count the large muscle mass the males retained after hormone treatment as an argument they can’t compete fairly, they just say ‘well it’s uncertain’.
I didn’t see anything in my skim examining actual performance on trans athletes, and whether trans-identifying male athletes tend to be outliers on the high performance end of metrics in women’s sports. Seems like a really obvious and pointed thing to examine, kinda suspicious that it isn’t there. I know this particular article is a literature review and not original research, but they couldn’t find any published research to include that looks at this? Is that because the research isn’t out there, or is it because they didn’t like what it said so they found a reason to exclude it?
It feels to me like they knew what their conclusion was going to be before they started writing this article.
They also say this:
This seems like intentional muddying of the waters. If they can claim no research can be found identifying a ‘specific reason’ that males have a competitive advantage at all, then they can make the same claim about trans-identifying males. But even the authors of this review apparently do not debate the fact that males in general have a competitive advantage.
Willy T is an AGP. I wouldn’t count on his dropping his fetish.
@Sonderval #7
I think it means transgender people of adult age who took puberty blockers long enough to miss the window of adult development. Puberty blockers aren’t just a “pause” button, that is “fully reversible” once you stop taking them. Is it the pituitary gland that starts the shower of developmental hormones? Did I remember that right? Well, anyway, as I understand it, puberty blockers can supress the normal secretion of developmental hormones, but the trigger fires within a certain age range. If you suppress the hormones long enough, you have eliminated the chance of adult development altogether. You will be of adult age, without normal physical and brain maturation.
Hence the alarming numbers of men who have been loudly in favour of child ‘transition’ who have recently been charged with child rape and sexual abuse, and being in possession of images of children being abused. They’re in favour of having children to abuse who are too old to be called children.
That’s a telling detail right there. Their commitment to defending their commitment to the ideology they’re protecting and promoting overrides their supposed function to inform. We’ve noted that for a long time, but this instance is a very concise example.
Thomas can now jump on the “Brave and Stunning, horribly persecuted, Trans Woman” gravy train, with sympathetic outlets like CNN ready to give his new branding a boost. They’re already running interference for him (I know, footbal terminology in a story about a swimmer, but whatever), and are still tying themselves in knots in their demonstration of fealty to transgenderism, despite its unravelling before their eyes. Thomas and the useful idiot media need each other to continue the farce. Thomas isn’t going to (is unable to?) give up his fetish, and if he can eke a few more lengths out of his waning celebrity, he will. How long before he teams up with Chase Strangio, telling us all how hard done by he is, and how “unfair” it’s been for him. THomas is all in on this; so are the captured media. We’re likely to get a few more iterations of their mutual parasitism before the next faux outrage of “injustice” (i.e., the next correction of trans overreach and invasion) comes along.
Ewww. I did not realize that.
As for the no research question, it is highly disingenuous of them to say something like that, since trans advocates have been doing everything they can to stifle and prevent research from being done, calling it ‘transphobic’ to even research the issue. Perhaps they know what they will find…
These TiMs know they have an advantage over women; that’s a feature, not a bug. And with so many pushing for self-identification only, the issue of whether they have had puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery would be completely irrelevant, since all you need to do is say ‘oh, I’m a girl. See my head tilt?’ and they’re in.
… All the while proclaiming that scientific study has established that there is no physical advantage.
Right in line with the claims that science backs their assertion that sex is not a binary, but a spectrum.
Re “science”, I see that the SPLC is currently promoting their “Captain” report from a few years ago, claiming that “anti-trans” rhetoric is based on “pseudoscience” (there are two sexes, male physical advantages, puberty blockers are harmful, and so on). They quote the AAP and others. Part of what makes this issue so difficult to argue is that TRAs, bolstered by captured experts, are firmly convinced the science is on their side.
@ Sackbut #17
I don’t believe that for a minute. I think the organized advocates know very well that their scientific claims are bogus. It’s just that their bullying has worked so well on people — even scientists — who value their progressive cred more than honesty, that many have become ideological toadies. They don’t want to be the next JKR or Graham Linehan or Kathleen Stock or Maya Forstater or Posie Parker or Maria MacLachlan or any of those evil TERFs who don’t worship at the altar of trans religion.
Perhaps I’m referring to unorganized advocates, then. I know of a fair number of people, educated people, who advocate for trans rights, and who are genuinely convinced that the science is on their side. I don’t think they are secretly ignoring the science, I think they are convinced and not looking closely at the information. Maybe they aren’t properly called TRAs, I admit.