|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 21, 2023 23:08:03 GMT -5
Height isn't affected by therapy post puberty. We knew that already - bone density declines but bone length doesn't. Muscle mass will scale with height, so imagine they have to correct for that height effect. Reducing muscle mass to levels lower than predicted by height would impose a severe competitive disadvantage. Lots of stress on muscles. Potential for injury much higher I would presume. I'm grading on a tight deadline so don't have time to read either of these closely right now. But I will get to them. It looks to me like this is a very nascent field though. The substantive research is scant on first glance. Very much so on athletes per se. Good article. Any idea of the source of funding? Should be stated in the article. I'm too busy right now. Doesn't really matter if their methodology stands up. Funding only matters if you can't assess methodology, and if you focus on interpretation and opinion rather than concrete results. That takes time and energy to evaluate. I don't have in the next 24 h. |
|
|
|
Post by VB48 on Dec 21, 2023 23:31:04 GMT -5
Good article. Any idea of the source of funding? Should be stated in the article. I'm too busy right now. Doesn't really matter if their methodology stands up. Funding only matters if you can't assess methodology, and if you focus on interpretation and opinion rather than concrete results. That takes time and energy to evaluate. I don't have in the next 24 h. You cannot possibly believe that. Funding always matters! Whoever pays for the research gets what they paid for, or they would not publish. I have no clue who paid or did the research, but if someone doing the research or paying for the research benefits from a specific outcome, it lessens the impact, and brings scrutiny on conclusions. Would love to see a larger study done on athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Dec 21, 2023 23:36:36 GMT -5
Should be stated in the article. I'm too busy right now. Doesn't really matter if their methodology stands up. Funding only matters if you can't assess methodology, and if you focus on interpretation and opinion rather than concrete results. That takes time and energy to evaluate. I don't have in the next 24 h. You cannot possibly believe that. Funding always matters! Whoever pays for the research gets what they paid for, or they would not publish. I have no clue who paid or did the research, but if someone doing the research or paying for the research benefits from a specific outcome, it lessens the impact, and brings scrutiny on conclusions. Would love to see a larger study done on athletes. What are you talking about? Peer reviewed publications do not publish studies based on funding. In fact they publish conflict of interest statements. If your preferred resources are not peer reviewed, maybe you should reconsider the “research” you’re reading. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 21, 2023 23:45:31 GMT -5
Should be stated in the article. I'm too busy right now. Doesn't really matter if their methodology stands up. Funding only matters if you can't assess methodology, and if you focus on interpretation and opinion rather than concrete results. That takes time and energy to evaluate. I don't have in the next 24 h. You cannot possibly believe that. Funding always matters! Whoever pays for the research gets what they paid for, or they would not publish. I have no clue who paid or did the research, but if someone doing the research or paying for the research benefits from a specific outcome, it lessens the impact, and brings scrutiny on conclusions. Would love to see a larger study done on athletes. Of course I believe that. I'm a scientist. Methodology matters. If someone is trying to get specific results, it is ALWAYS through the methodology somehow. You can figure it out but it takes time and know how. Sometimes they add opinions, but those cases are easy to figure out. If you don't understand this, you can get pulled every which way by anyone with an agenda. When scientists publish, it needs to all be transparent. If it's not transparent you have to ask questions. If the review process works as it should, you have to convince reviewers who are actually your competitors. Science can be like trying to sell cars to other car dealers. That's why it's so painful and slow. Before I review a paper I always check to make sure the specific publications can be trusted to pick good reviewers. There are nefarious journals out there, but there are many serious ones. Unadulterated cynicism is akin to a form of naivete. There is no difference between blindly accepting results and blindly thinking that they are all subject to distortion. Every finding has to be held as conditional. Every method has to be interrogated. But that doesn't mean you can say anything with the data at hand. Smart people will find you out. |
|
|
|
Post by VB48 on Dec 21, 2023 23:49:40 GMT -5
You cannot possibly believe that. Funding always matters! Whoever pays for the research gets what they paid for, or they would not publish. I have no clue who paid or did the research, but if someone doing the research or paying for the research benefits from a specific outcome, it lessens the impact, and brings scrutiny on conclusions. Would love to see a larger study done on athletes. What are you talking about? Peer reviewed publications do not publish studies based on funding. In fact they publish conflict of interest statements. If your preferred resources are not peer reviewed, maybe you should reconsider the “research” you’re reading. Peer reviewed research can have confirmation bias, as everyone is part of the same group think. Like I said, I have no clue who did the research, but we saw plenty of research during the pandemeic, and a lot of it was flat out false, because the government needed it to be. I am no conspiracy theorist, but an awful lot of conspiracys have proven true over the past 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by HappyVolley on Dec 21, 2023 23:50:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Dec 22, 2023 0:00:55 GMT -5
I already responded to this paper. The paper isn't talking about people undergoing hormonal transition. Just people self identifying as non binary and running in random events that aren't sanctioned by official bodies. It's just saying biological sex makes a difference, which literally everyone already acknowledges. All you are doing is pointing out how the misinformation network operates to amplify messages without nuance. I like how The Publica sounds like Pro Publica. I guess that's supposed to be clever. |
|
|
|
Post by molokaiboi on Dec 22, 2023 1:00:59 GMT -5
Get over it.. they’re trans-women… I may accept them as women because that’s what they feel like they need to be called but I don’t have to submit and say they are biological woman.. 🤭😂 Just because someone takes hormones, it doesn’t make them a biological women. Sorry… So what defines a woman? Someone with breasts? A vagina? Ovaries? Is it all just physical/external characteristics that defines womanhood for you? This is ridiculous… a biological woman’s stays a biological woman.. A trans woman is a trans woman.. if a trans woman wants to be called a woman.. it’s fine with me .. but like I said over and over again… they are not biological women. What aren’t you getting? What’s a biological woman to you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2023 1:05:12 GMT -5
You nitwits are still babbling on about this? This isn't Off the Net. Let the kid be and move on with your lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 22, 2023 1:19:13 GMT -5
So what defines a woman? Someone with breasts? A vagina? Ovaries? Is it all just physical/external characteristics that defines womanhood for you? This is ridiculous… a biological woman’s stays a biological woman.. A trans woman is a trans woman.. if a trans woman wants to be called a woman.. it’s fine with me .. but like I said over and over again… they are not biological women. What aren’t you getting? What’s a biological woman to you? You are very good at dodging questions, but I don’t remember using the term biological in mine. I don’t go around to stores and see “Biological Women’s” clothing sections. Nor do I see any “biological women” bathrooms. And last I checked, the NCAA didn’t have a “Biological Women’s” sports division. |
|
|
|
Post by molokaiboi on Dec 22, 2023 1:37:09 GMT -5
This is ridiculous… a biological woman’s stays a biological woman.. A trans woman is a trans woman.. if a trans woman wants to be called a woman.. it’s fine with me .. but like I said over and over again… they are not biological women. What aren’t you getting? What’s a biological woman to you? You are very good at dodging questions, but I don’t remember using the term biological in mine. I don’t go around to stores and see “Biological Women’s” clothing sections. Nor do I see any “biological women” bathrooms. And last I checked, the NCAA didn’t have a “Biological Women’s” sports division. I’m not dodging questions. I want you to define a biological woman because you seem to think that trans-woman are their equals. What defines a biological woman to you? Let’s start at birth.. I want you define a biological woman and a trans woman. |
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 22, 2023 1:39:36 GMT -5
You are very good at dodging questions, but I don’t remember using the term biological in mine. I don’t go around to stores and see “Biological Women’s” clothing sections. Nor do I see any “biological women” bathrooms. And last I checked, the NCAA didn’t have a “Biological Women’s” sports division. I’m not dodging questions. I want you to define a biological woman because you seem to think that trans-woman are their equals. What defines a biological woman to you? I’ll answer your question when you answer mine. |
|
|
|
Post by molokaiboi on Dec 22, 2023 1:40:56 GMT -5
I’m not dodging questions. I want you to define a biological woman because you seem to think that trans-woman are their equals. What defines a biological woman to you? I’ll answer your question when you answer mine. You can’t define what a biological woman is because you need to start at birth. A biological woman comes out with a vagina.. a trans woman comes out with a penis. Is that hard for you to comprehend? |
|
|
|
Post by houstonbear15 on Dec 22, 2023 1:43:12 GMT -5
I’ll answer your question when you answer mine. You can’t define what a biological woman is because you need to start at birth. A biological woman comes out with a vagina.. a trans woman comes out with a penis. Is that hard for you to comprehend? You still haven’t answered my question on what defines a woman? You can ditch the extra terms because I’m not using them right now. |
|
|
|
Post by molokaiboi on Dec 22, 2023 1:46:30 GMT -5
You can’t define what a biological woman is because you need to start at birth. A biological woman comes out with a vagina.. a trans woman comes out with a penis. Is that hard for you to comprehend? You still haven’t answered my question on what defines a woman? You can ditch the extra terms because I’m not using them right now. *edited* In this day and age anyone can call themselves a woman. But you can’t ignore that fact that some “women” are born with a penis and they had to take hormones to transition into a “woman”. Isn’t that true? |
|
