Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by beachWholesaleS 81 days ago
Source?
2 comments

From the article:

> Late last year Dr. Jane Thornton, the I.O.C.’s medical and scientific director and a Canadian former Olympic rower, presented the initial findings of a review of athletes who are transgender or have differences of sexual development, known as DSD, and are competing in women’s sports. That analysis, which has not been made public, stated athletes born with male sexual markers retained physical advantages, including among those that had received treatment to reduce testosterone.

Let's be a little science-focused, okay?

I would be interested to see that analysis, and it's unfortunate that it is not publicly available in some fashion. I'm mainly curious about the number of DSD-expressing vs transgender athletes they reviewed. Trans athletes in the Olympics or even competing at an Olympic level are vanishingly rare.
That very quoted section indicates the analysis has not been made public. IMO that's very fishy and makes me question the authenticity of the source. What is Dr. Thornton hiding, exactly? Why conceal the review, methodology and data? Even if preliminary it should be released.
I support trans-rights, and want to weigh one groups of rights against another groups.

Taking one stat which is uncontroversial. AFAB women are are significantly more likely to sustain ACL injuries than men or trans-women: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4805849/

Multiple reasons, but leg placement on the hip means direction change at pace puts more stress on joints, and the cycle appears to cause problems for reasons that AFAIK are still unknown.

It wouldn't shock me if some sports are impacted, but I also know that there are some vocal people on both sides of the opinion that would scream regardless of the outcome.

However we have examples like Ellia Green who, if we used "conventional wisdom" wouldn't have won in the mens Rugby Olympics. The one thing I've learnt is that things that sound important rarely are.

I mean yes but why keep the analysis private? I can think of very few reasons to do that, and one of them is because they know their methodology or data is flawed or inaccurate and they don't want people figuring that out. Obviously this is speculation but I would think they would want data like that to be public, since we want more data on things like this, not less.
I completely agree.
> That analysis, which has not been made public

So much for science.

A source is not required, taking part in the Olympics alone, means outperforming your countries other athletes. If that doesn’t happen there wouldn’t be a reason for the article.