Why, by Jove, it’s the female athletes!
Jon Pike on the use of passive and speculative wording to arrive at one’s desired conclusion:
It’s always female sport that needs conceptual engineering. Funny how that works.
They’ve given up on the claim that T reduction is all that’s needed, he says, and that’s good, that’s an advance, but…
Oh for fuck’s SAKE was my initial response, and then my ongoing response. Unique individuality in a pig’s eye. Lia Thomas’s advantage is not part of his “unique individuality,” it’s all too generic. Get a fucking clue.
Seriously. Anything “could be” regarded as anything; the Amalgamated Union of Weasels issues a complaint of plagiarism.
His PhD students need to suck it up. The point is crucial.
Then he goes in for the kill.
Bam.
They had a result that they wanted, and the hard work was in determining how to get there. That’s wh the panel is made up of all men, so they could say that they used science (badly) to get the result they wanted, with no dissent from anyone on the panel least of all a trans-ID-man who plays soccer with women.
Get your “yes men” if you want to perform “groupthink.” They’re not really looking at solutions to make the panel more fair, because then they’d have to include a transphobe, wouldn’t they?
Mike, “…because then they’d have to include a transphobe…” They wouldn’t have far to look would they, along with all the transies coming out of the woodwork, there has also been an explosion of transphobia lately. :P
Maybe it’s just me, but the sentence in the conclusion “… any advantage held by a person belonging to an athlete…” is just really really badly written.
Jon is right that the paper is a terrible piece of both writing and thinking. It’s very clearly conclusionary. It has all the hallmarks of writing I try and
beatmentor out of my juniors. Presenting a conclusion/recommendation with absolutely zero support. Just look at the very first sentence in the abstract“Sport is historically designated by the binary categorization of male and female that conflicts with modern society.”
That’s an eye popper right there. Who says so? Which modern society? Evidence that ‘modern society’ has decided that a sex based binary is in conflict to societies views? It’s just an apologia that is dressed up as an academic paper and the authors should hang their heads in shame. Not to mention tossing in DSD athletes again to muddy the waters.
Rob: Also, “that” introduces a restrictive clause. Thus, the sentence presupposes both existence and uniqueness of the whole phrase; i.e., “binary categorization of male and female that conflicts with modern society.” In other words, it allows for and heavily suggests the existence of alternative binary categorizations of male and female that do not conflict with modern society. Maybe one of those terfy ones.