Cashead wrote:
I had noticed her stuff about Manchester Uni and Warwick Uni, but I had also observed that in the Guardian article you mention, her name is accompanied by "honorary" in brackets. Draw your own conclusions from that.
Second, she does discuss a so-called study from 2004. Secondly, she admits it was "[her] systematic search," and much like the issues that came up in some of the other research, it also ignored the lived experiences of transwomen in competitive sports, which she tries to hand waive away as being irrelevant due to the small sample size Jo Harper had to work with.
I'm struggling to see how you're getting what you've written from the article. Heres what she says about the Harper paper:
"Harper studied eight sub-elite runners, pre- and post-transition, and graded their performance for age and sex. There are many, many flaws in this study. Firstly, the data is hardly more than a collection of anecdotes, with the majority of times self-reported, not verified, and reliant on memories often spanning decades. I can’t even remember my run times from a month ago. She may as well have surveyed Twitter, although that would have had lots of people offering their compromised performances with pickle jar lids rather than 10k races.
So, small cohort, no control group, transition times varying from 1 year to a whopping 29 years, no correction for the myriad changes any athlete may experience regarding fitness, diet, training regime, injury. Causing me the most concern, and I’m not sure it’s widely known, Harper’s study was published by a sports society where authors pay to submit manuscripts and agree, in return, to review those of others, each of whom has paid to submit a manuscript…and so on. Politely, this could be referred to as ethically dubious, but it’s effectively a pay-per-review circlejerk"
You have explicitly said that one can't expect objectivity from a talk aimed at a particular type of crowd, yet you are happy to accept Harpers conclusions despite it being published in the manner outlined above? Sorry mate but thats pretty contradictory.
Cashead wrote:
Third, her methodology is once again flawed due to the fact that the majority of the research until Harper came along, the majority of the research had little to do with actual sports.
She specifically details papers published after Harpers in 2015 that looked at "around 100" athletes and found conclusions as I've quoted/ outlined above, that explicitly contradict the claims you and Puja made earlier in this thread. That earlier papers she mentions also reach the same conclusions albeit with non-athletes shows there is a strong case for not being quite so intransigent about it.
Cashead wrote:
Finally, the link you posted is a transcript of a talk she gave at a TERF organisation function. Have a poke around the shit posted on that website. There are so many dog whistles there, there's been non-stop barking in my neighbourhood for the last 12 hours. Do you expect any objectivity at a talk aimed at a particular type of crowd?
I'm not sure an organisation set up to promote fairness for women, that references all its sources and uses science to present its case to the world, can be so summarily dismissed. I personally didnt see any dog whistles on that site, although I will admit to not being emotionally involved.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
