Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

I was going to post that same twitter thread here yesterday, I'll quote a bit of it:

In the 1940s, Murray Barr discovered a tightly-packed ball of chromosome material hanging around the edges of the female cell nucleus. He named this the Barr Body.

In the 1960s, Mary Lyon discovered that in female mammals, who have two copies of the X chromosome, one of those Xs is shut down. We now know that this process is needed to regulate the amount of active X chromosome genes a cell can handle. Males, with only one X, don’t need to do this.The tightly-packed ball of chromosome material discovered in the 1940s - the Barr body - is this inactivated X chromosome.

It was soon realised that looking for Barr bodies - which give a very intense and obvious dye signal – was a quick way of checking what sex an animal was.Including, in 1968, human animals playing female sport.Females with two Xs have this bright dye spot, males with only one X don’t. Simple, right?But some males have an extra X (XXY, Klinefelter Syndrome) and they pack their second X down, just like females, giving a positive signal on the Barr body test. And some females only have one X (X0, Turner Syndrome) and no Barr body.The Barr body test could tell you about second or extra X chromosomes, but this wasn’t the best way to understand the sex of the person.

In 1992, sex testing sport switched to the more accurate method of trying to find a gene on the Y chromosome called SRY. This gene is considered a master switch in male development.The test was done in a chemical reaction (the polymerase chain reaction, for the geeks) to rapidly replicate large amounts of the SRY gene from a DNA sample, which could then be detected by routine DNA gel analysis. If SRY isn’t in the sample, you don’t get any replication.

But, of course, some males may have the SRY gene but they do not develop as a healthy male. That is, they have a disorder of sex development.In 1999, sex testing was abolished, given the unusual results popping in the female athletes, the potential for trauma in those athletes, and the prevailing opinion that having a male XY DSD probably didn’t matter in female sport.

Of course, today, that prevailing opinion from over two decades ago has been overturned. We understand more about sports performance, male advantage, and what anatomical features contribute to it.We have far easier and cheaper ways of looking at chromosomes and DNA, and we have stronger ethical frameworks regarding genetic testing. The “bad old days” that the International Olympic Committee evoke to obstruct sex testing that would protect the female category is a red herring.

Today, testing for sex is routine. Our sampling is better, and we can find sex chromosomes from really small amounts of suboptimal material. As many mother’s will know, we can find fetal sex chromosomes from Mum’s blood sample. Our dyes are better. Our imaging is better.

Forget dyes that showed us size and shape, forget dyes that give us patterns of bands, and start looking at light-emitting molecular dyes that bond to specific genes on specific chromosomes instead (and light up two green Xs and one red SRY). Look at how a computer can read those signals.

All that text, all nonsense.

You deny scientific fact.

Not a shred of scientific evidence to back up any claim either, just walls and walls of nonsense.

Every you’ve said there is seems to be mostly incorrect, if not irrelevant rambling.

That’s not remotely scientific?

Determining there is a statistical relevant performance advantage is literally the scientific method. No idea why you are framing your ignorance as a question.

For starters genetic sex is determined at conception, and can be detected months before a woman gives birth, and when she does, the sex of the infant is recorded at birth, not assigned.

The accepted nomenclature is sex assigned at birth. All your waffle about inception is irrelevant. Haggling semantics even less so.

The question is whether that advantage is unfair, not whether or not it exists, and it certainly doesn’t appear to exist in any transgender athletes who have thus far ever competed in an Olympic event.

If that advantage exists, it is unfair by its very nature. Therefore that “question” is answered.

And it clearly existed in trans athletes who competed in Olympics. I believe that already explanation to you when Laurel Hubbard competed. Maintaining ignorance to stick to a flawed argument is silly.

If anyone were caught cheating, they would face disciplinary action, doesn’t matter what sex they are or what gender they claim they are. That’s what a therapeutic medical exemption is for, to allow athletes to take medication which is on the banned substances list, without any penalty.

You can’t get a TUE for testosterone. No trans athlete has a TUE for their pre-transition testosterone levels. Claiming this is covered by a TUE is blatant lying.

That doesn't appears to be based on any fact related to performance.

Doesn’t appear to have stopped you all the same?

What is this generic nonsense.

I said your “opinion “ on advantages has nothing to do with performance. “Doesn't appear to have stopped you”. lol. What?

Athletes don’t appear out of thin air when it’s game time and then disappear back into the closet afterwards. They’re actually living, breathing, human beings. They don’t just appear when it’s time to perform, they have lives outside of the sport in which they choose to participate and compete. Some of them even have a presence on social media where they interact with other athletes, their fans and supporters!

Relevance? Yes they are all people. Which has no bearing on the issue.

But it doesn’t follow thatanyonewho thinks a trans women shouldn’t compete in women’s sports is anti-trans or bigoted.

That depends on the individual.

missing other reasonable views.

I haven't seen any to be honest.

Again we circle back to 2 truths.

There is virtually no trans women playing organised sports.

And in the very small number that do, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence they are out performing anyone.

We have the example of the one and only Olympian who Finished last.

My view which is constant is that everyone should be encouraged to play sports at their level.

Hardly what anyone could frame as unreasonable.

Not meaning to be pedantic or anything, but ‘did quite well’ is a subjective standard. In terms of their actual ranking in the sport - they’re a bit **** (also subjective, to be fair 😂).

But as for what started this thread, well, it was actually the performance of Schuyler Bailar was being used to make a point which, well, it was just as much use as any other anecdote -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuyler_Bailar

That is to say - not a whole lot.

There was no need for the imo, I took it as a given that it is your opinion. That’s why I pointed out that saying Thomas did quite well, would have needed clarification, seeing as there was nothing astonishing about their performance -

Ms Thomas won the women's 500 yard freestyle race in 4m 33.24s. She came fifth in the 200 yard race, with 1m 43.40s, and eighth in the 100 yard race with 48.40s. 

These were impressive results, but they weren't record-breaking. Though the overall competition saw 27 all-time NCAA records broken, Ms Thomas's times weren't among them.

A whopping 18 of those were broken by Kate Douglass of the University of Virginia (UVA), who now has the fastest times in US college history in the 50 yard freestyle, the 100 yard butterfly stroke, and the 200 yard breaststroke. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html

I don’t think there were any anti-scientific implications in the post at all, simply because it was just one example, an anecdote. Nothing to be getting worked up about in terms of any perceived threat to science. Getting worked up over it would simply be as silly as the whole “sky is falling” nonsense because an acorn fell on their head -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny

In any case, I went back and double-checked the opening post as I wasn’t sure it actually was Schuyler Bailar was used as the example. It wasn’t, the example used was Iszac Henig -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iszac_Henig

Culture war bollocks is apt considering the photos of lia seem to show just that.

Apologies, I just find it difficult to accept a woman can have bollocks, if I caused offence by pointing that out, I apologise.