RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote:

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Not to reopen old scores, but going back to Eugenes post... here are some excerpts and a link to a talk given by Dr Emma Hilton recently, that seem to contradict what has been said in this thread about transwomen athletes...


Maybe the science actually, as far as it can, paints a different picture to what has been presented in this thread?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Sorry, but I'm going to be sceptical of the so-called findings of what appears to be a TERF organisation.

They are the findings of referenced peer reviewed scientific papers.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Are we talking about the link you posted? Because that's just a known TERF, who's doctorate is honorary to begin with, cherrypicking research to suit her agenda, while repeatedly going back to a study done in the early 2000s, when this kind of shit wasn't properly researched.

It has about as much credence as David Duke presenting a paper on scientific racism, and equally deserves to be dismissed.

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

cashead wrote: Sorry, but I'm going to be sceptical of the so-called findings of what appears to be a TERF organisation.

They are the findings of referenced peer reviewed scientific papers.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Are we talking about the link you posted? Because that's just a known TERF, who's doctorate is honorary to begin with, cherrypicking research to suit her agenda, while repeatedly going back to a study done in the early 2000s, when this kind of shit wasn't properly researched.

It has about as much credence as David Duke presenting a paper on scientific racism, and equally deserves to be dismissed.

Really? According to her linkedin page shes a post doctoral research fellow at manchester uni, having done a phd at warwick uni.

Also in the link she explicitly looks at papers from 2008 and 2015... so not one study done in the early 2000s at all.

Also shes one of the signatories of a letter to the guardian decrying attacks on academics (https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... der-issues)

You can simply wave a hand and dismiss all these people as terfs if you want, but I dont think its going to do you much good.

I wonder how UG is getting on these days?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:They are the findings of referenced peer reviewed scientific papers.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Are we talking about the link you posted? Because that's just a known TERF, who's doctorate is honorary to begin with, cherrypicking research to suit her agenda, while repeatedly going back to a study done in the early 2000s, when this kind of shit wasn't properly researched.

It has about as much credence as David Duke presenting a paper on scientific racism, and equally deserves to be dismissed.

Really? According to her linkedin page shes a post doctoral research fellow at manchester uni, having done a phd at warwick uni.

Also in the link she explicitly looks at papers from 2008 and 2015... so not one study done in the early 2000s at all.

Also shes one of the signatories of a letter to the guardian decrying attacks on academics (https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... der-issues)

You can simply wave a hand and dismiss all these people as terfs if you want, but I dont think its going to do you much good.

I wonder how UG is getting on these days?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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.

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.

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?

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

Donny osmond wrote:

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.

Harper's description of how the Journal of Sporting Cultures and Identities conducts its business is quite the misrepresentation.

The research she cites from 2003/2004 is, based on what she's discussing, purely about anatomy, but if she's being disingenuous about one thing, who knows what else she's being disingenuous about?

Donny osmond wrote:

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.

"until Harper came along"
She also misrepresents Harper's 2015 research, claiming it was "unverified," which, outlined in the methodology outlined in Harper's article itself, is simply not true. (Google "Race Times for Transgender Athletes"). So, she's already been caught out twice, and that's just based on very entry-level Google-fu.

And remember what I wrote earlier in this post about her being disingenuous about one thing creating doubt about how she represents things elsewhere?

Donny osmond wrote:
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.

Really, dude?

"But people born male do not have the automatic right to enter the legal category of the female sex. Feeling like a woman is not the same as being a woman. Presenting as feminine is not the same as being female. Being a gender-nonconforming man does not stop you being male. Females exist. Women and girls exist. We share unique characteristics because of our biology and the way our femaleness is treated by society. We cannot identify out of that. That’s why the law protects women as a sex and permits the exclusion of males when objectively justified.

Trans rights are human rights, but they are not female rights."

This is TERF shit being couched in what they believe is language that legitimises it.

Trans women are women. hth.

I think there’s a massive amount of discrimination and disinformation against transgender people and I’m massively in favour of fixing that, but I’m curious Cash if you see that there is ever a situation where a cis-gendered female is legitimately concerned about parts of the transgender movement (for want of a better phrase) without simply being a TERF or a bigot?

Mikey Brown wrote:I think there’s a massive amount of discrimination and disinformation against transgender people and I’m massively in favour of fixing that, but I’m curious Cash if you see that there is ever a situation where a cis-gendered female is legitimately concerned about parts of the transgender movement (for want of a better phrase) without simply being a TERF or a bigot?

I'm curious if you see that there is ever a situation where a white person is legitimately concerned about parts of the black civil rights movement without simply being a racist or a bigot?

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

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.

Harper's description of how the Journal of Sporting Cultures and Identities conducts its business is quite the misrepresentation.

The research she cites from 2003/2004 is, based on what she's discussing, purely about anatomy, but if she's being disingenuous about one thing, who knows what else she's being disingenuous about?

Donny osmond wrote:

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.

"until Harper came along"
She also misrepresents Harper's 2015 research, claiming it was "unverified," which, outlined in the methodology outlined in Harper's article itself, is simply not true. (Google "Race Times for Transgender Athletes"). So, she's already been caught out twice, and that's just based on very entry-level Google-fu.

And remember what I wrote earlier in this post about her being disingenuous about one thing creating doubt about how she represents things elsewhere?

From Harpers paper:

Race times from eight transgender women runners were collected over a period of seven years
and, when possible, verified. The collection process consisted of seeking out female transgender
distance runners, mostly online, and then asking them to submit race times. Even in 2014 few
people are open about being transgender, so the submission of race times represented a large leap
of faith for the participants. When possible, race times were then verified using online services
listing race results. For six of the eight runners, online checking made it possible to verify
approximately half of the submitted times.

"...when possible, verified..." is written twice in that one quote. She says herself approx half race times used were verified for 6 of the 8 participants. Drawing concrete conclusions from this is garbage, this is not verified data.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
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.

Harper's description of how the Journal of Sporting Cultures and Identities conducts its business is quite the misrepresentation.

The research she cites from 2003/2004 is, based on what she's discussing, purely about anatomy, but if she's being disingenuous about one thing, who knows what else she's being disingenuous about?

Donny osmond wrote:
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.

"until Harper came along"
She also misrepresents Harper's 2015 research, claiming it was "unverified," which, outlined in the methodology outlined in Harper's article itself, is simply not true. (Google "Race Times for Transgender Athletes"). So, she's already been caught out twice, and that's just based on very entry-level Google-fu.

And remember what I wrote earlier in this post about her being disingenuous about one thing creating doubt about how she represents things elsewhere?

From Harpers paper:

Race times from eight transgender women runners were collected over a period of seven years
and, when possible, verified. The collection process consisted of seeking out female transgender
distance runners, mostly online, and then asking them to submit race times. Even in 2014 few
people are open about being transgender, so the submission of race times represented a large leap
of faith for the participants. When possible, race times were then verified using online services
listing race results. For six of the eight runners, online checking made it possible to verify
approximately half of the submitted times.

"...when possible, verified..." is written twice in that one quote. She says herself approx half race times used were verified for 6 of the 8 participants. Drawing concrete conclusions from this is garbage, this is not verified data.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It ain't "unverified" either, and to call it as such is a half-truth, at best.

cashead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I think there’s a massive amount of discrimination and disinformation against transgender people and I’m massively in favour of fixing that, but I’m curious Cash if you see that there is ever a situation where a cis-gendered female is legitimately concerned about parts of the transgender movement (for want of a better phrase) without simply being a TERF or a bigot?

I'm curious if you see that there is ever a situation where a white person is legitimately concerned about parts of the black civil rights movement without simply being a racist or a bigot?

I’ll take that as a ‘no’, shall I?

cashead wrote:
Trans women are women. hth.

By some standards, not all.

Donny osmond wrote:She's worth a follow on twitter too, for calm reasoned science based debate...

@fondofbeetles

twitter.....

Folks, let’s all behave nicely please and keep any comments constructive and non-personal.

Thanks

Sandydragon wrote:Folks, let’s all behave nicely please and keep any comments constructive and non-personal.

Thanks

But DAD! He started it!

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Folks, let’s all behave nicely please and keep any comments constructive and non-personal.

Thanks

But DAD! He started it!

Please tell me DAD isn’t Bru....sorry.....Caitlyn Jenner?!?!?

Mellsblue wrote:

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Folks, let’s all behave nicely please and keep any comments constructive and non-personal.

Thanks

But DAD! He started it!

Please tell me DAD isn’t Bru....sorry.....Caitlyn Jenner?!?!?

I cannot confirm nor deny that... it is a mystery.

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Folks, let’s all behave nicely please and keep any comments constructive and non-personal.

Thanks

But DAD! He started it!

Little children who grass each other up get no supper.

Sandydragon wrote:

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Folks, let’s all behave nicely please and keep any comments constructive and non-personal.

Thanks

But DAD! He started it!

Little children who grass each other up get no supper.

Boo.

cashead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I think there’s a massive amount of discrimination and disinformation against transgender people and I’m massively in favour of fixing that, but I’m curious Cash if you see that there is ever a situation where a cis-gendered female is legitimately concerned about parts of the transgender movement (for want of a better phrase) without simply being a TERF or a bigot?

I'm curious if you see that there is ever a situation where a white person is legitimately concerned about parts of the black civil rights movement without simply being a racist or a bigot?

Donny, apparently racial comparisons are absolutely dandy after all.

And cas, of course a white person can be concerned with parts of the black civil rights movement without being a racist or bigot. Any person who wasn't concerned about some of the aspects of The Nation of Islam for example would be quite odd.

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

cashead wrote: Harper's description of how the Journal of Sporting Cultures and Identities conducts its business is quite the misrepresentation.

The research she cites from 2003/2004 is, based on what she's discussing, purely about anatomy, but if she's being disingenuous about one thing, who knows what else she's being disingenuous about?




"until Harper came along"
She also misrepresents Harper's 2015 research, claiming it was "unverified," which, outlined in the methodology outlined in Harper's article itself, is simply not true. (Google "Race Times for Transgender Athletes"). So, she's already been caught out twice, and that's just based on very entry-level Google-fu.

And remember what I wrote earlier in this post about her being disingenuous about one thing creating doubt about how she represents things elsewhere?

From Harpers paper:

Race times from eight transgender women runners were collected over a period of seven years
and, when possible, verified. The collection process consisted of seeking out female transgender
distance runners, mostly online, and then asking them to submit race times. Even in 2014 few
people are open about being transgender, so the submission of race times represented a large leap
of faith for the participants. When possible, race times were then verified using online services
listing race results. For six of the eight runners, online checking made it possible to verify
approximately half of the submitted times.

"...when possible, verified..." is written twice in that one quote. She says herself approx half race times used were verified for 6 of the 8 participants. Drawing concrete conclusions from this is garbage, this is not verified data.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It ain't "unverified" either, and to call it as such is a half-truth, at best.

What? Of course its unverified, if less than half your data hasn't been verified your data set as a whole is unverified. That this is an argument you're comfortable making really speaks volumes about your approach to this subject as a whole. I get that you're emotionally involved and see this stuff first hand and are on the side of the kids you deal with, great, but you're using that involvement to argue that black is white.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I think there’s a massive amount of discrimination and disinformation against transgender people and I’m massively in favour of fixing that, but I’m curious Cash if you see that there is ever a situation where a cis-gendered female is legitimately concerned about parts of the transgender movement (for want of a better phrase) without simply being a TERF or a bigot?

I'm curious if you see that there is ever a situation where a white person is legitimately concerned about parts of the black civil rights movement without simply being a racist or a bigot?

Donny, apparently racial comparisons are absolutely dandy after all.

And cas, of course a white person can be concerned with parts of the black civil rights movement without being a racist or bigot. Any person who wasn't concerned about some of the aspects of The Nation of Islam for example would be quite odd.

Yeah I noticed that. And the response seemed weird anyway, as you have also outlined.

But as I said earlier in the thread, this is one of those subject areas that, perhaps more than any other, seems to draw people into entrenched UG-esque positions where one is evil if one disagrees with them.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote: I'm curious if you see that there is ever a situation where a white person is legitimately concerned about parts of the black civil rights movement without simply being a racist or a bigot?

Donny, apparently racial comparisons are absolutely dandy after all.

And cas, of course a white person can be concerned with parts of the black civil rights movement without being a racist or bigot. Any person who wasn't concerned about some of the aspects of The Nation of Islam for example would be quite odd.

Yeah I noticed that. And the response seemed weird anyway, as you have also outlined.

But as I said earlier in the thread, this is one of those subject areas that, perhaps more than any other, seems to draw people into entrenched UG-esque positions where one is evil if one disagrees with them.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It's almost like human rights is something that shouldn't even be up for debate.

Donny osmond wrote:

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
From Harpers paper:


"...when possible, verified..." is written twice in that one quote. She says herself approx half race times used were verified for 6 of the 8 participants. Drawing concrete conclusions from this is garbage, this is not verified data.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It ain't "unverified" either, and to call it as such is a half-truth, at best.

What? Of course its unverified, if less than half your data hasn't been verified your data set as a whole is unverified. That this is an argument you're comfortable making really speaks volumes about your approach to this subject as a whole. I get that you're emotionally involved and see this stuff first hand and are on the side of the kids you deal with, great, but you're using that involvement to argue that black is white.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Or because it involves taking into account and contextualising the difficulties at the time in procuring participants, and this is also taken into account in the study, which requires looking at the available data holistically.
That is also not to mention that Harper's findings have been supported in subsequent research, in which more robust methods of verification were applied.

So it would seem theres just not enough definitive information to consider the matter resolved once and for all. I hope more data comes in to the picture to figure it all out either way so everyone can get on with competing fairly and justly.

Sorry for keeping on about this, I think it's fascinating but more, I think it's important, for reasons I'll come to later.

Firstly I came across this article that quotes an interview with none other than Dr Harper herself (accurately quotes, the audio clip is available on the website), the researcher previously discussed in this thread. In this interview she openly admits that her previous, famous, study was 'flawed' (for which read, bad science). Secondly she advocates the IOC should half the levels of testosterone required for women athletes in the 12 months prior to competition. Third she flat out states that "of course" there are lingering benefits for strength based sports for mtf transitioning women. Dr Harper, for those who don't know, is a mtf trans women which puts its own spin on her work in this area.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-30/ ... e/11360854