We can each go around finding articles that prove the point of either side. The truth is that the topic is complicated and needs more research. Picking out the few studies that prove your point and ignoring the ones that don’t isn’t engaging with the body of scientific knowledge in good faith. See my other comment to you too.
In nonathletic trans men starting testosterone therapy, within 1 year, muscle mass and strength increased and, by 3 years, physical performance (push-ups, sit-ups, run time) improved to the level of cisgender men. In nonathletic trans women, feminizing hormone therapy increased fat mass by approximately 30% and decreased muscle mass by approximately 5% after 12 months, and steadily declined beyond 3 years. While absolute lean mass remains higher in trans women, relative percentage lean mass and fat mass (and muscle strength corrected for lean mass), hemoglobin, and VO2 peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women. After 2 years of GAHT, no advantage was observed for physical performance measured by running time or in trans women. By 4 years, there was no advantage in sit-ups. While push-up performance declined in trans women, a statistical advantage remained relative to cisgender women.
Okay, so first of all, what is the relevance of the results of nonathletic trans women when we are talking about sports?
Second, according to your own quote, even this study seems to conclude that a statistical advantage in strength remained for trans women WHO DON’T EVEN DO SPORTS.
My point, this entire conversion, is the issue is complicated and needs more research. Yes some statistical differences in strength seem to remain. That doesn’t always translate to an advantage in a specific sport though. As I’ve mentioned before, and your own post references too, bone density doesn’t change. Moving around heavier bones with less muscles is a factor in determining any specific sport advantage.
You also ignore this entire section directly after the part you mention:
relative percentage lean mass and fat mass (and muscle strength corrected for lean mass), hemoglobin, and VO2 peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women. After 2 years of GAHT, no advantage was observed for physical performance measured by running time or in trans women. By 4 years, there was no advantage in sit-ups.
Surely there’s more to it than just strength right?
Again, my entire point is the issue is hard to study and needs more research. Surely you can see the value in using non-athletic populations in studies in order to get a sample size, even though its not perfect, right?
You are the one saying the issue is a 100% decided scientific fact. You have a greater burden of proof associated with that claim, which you have not demonstrated. Until you do I’m done with this convention.
We can each go around finding articles that prove the point of either side. The truth is that the topic is complicated and needs more research. Picking out the few studies that prove your point and ignoring the ones that don’t isn’t engaging with the body of scientific knowledge in good faith. See my other comment to you too.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37437247/
Okay, so first of all, what is the relevance of the results of nonathletic trans women when we are talking about sports?
Second, according to your own quote, even this study seems to conclude that a statistical advantage in strength remained for trans women WHO DON’T EVEN DO SPORTS.
My point, this entire conversion, is the issue is complicated and needs more research. Yes some statistical differences in strength seem to remain. That doesn’t always translate to an advantage in a specific sport though. As I’ve mentioned before, and your own post references too, bone density doesn’t change. Moving around heavier bones with less muscles is a factor in determining any specific sport advantage.
You also ignore this entire section directly after the part you mention:
Surely there’s more to it than just strength right?
Again, my entire point is the issue is hard to study and needs more research. Surely you can see the value in using non-athletic populations in studies in order to get a sample size, even though its not perfect, right?
You are the one saying the issue is a 100% decided scientific fact. You have a greater burden of proof associated with that claim, which you have not demonstrated. Until you do I’m done with this convention.