CharonY

From what a quick screening of the lit it seems that most call for more data (the current sports medicine article makes a couple of good suggestions). I.e. it is necessary to understand more about the transition process. Some of the articles that you and I shared indicated mixed results (i.e. decline in certain performances after transition but no decline in others in the tested period). Considering that much of the research only started a few years ago it is hardly surprising. That being said, as one can see in this thread, there are a lot of assumptions being made, and even if they turn out to be true, there is not enough weight of evidence to support it. To take a well known issue as an example, if there were only a dozen of papers in total describing climate change, folks would not scramble to address this issue (and of course, even after thousands of studies the response is still rather muted).

I think the Intoscience and Peterkin's points are great. Wearing masks can also be seen not as an individual measure but a broader public health effort. The aim is overall reduction of spread with requires broad scale collaboration. If one only focuses on individual benefits the last year has shown that the overall outcome is actually worse. So normalizing wearing masks, even in situations where it is not strictly necessary, can encourage wearing in situation where it is beneficial. A few studies have come out indicating that the delta variant might generate a viral load 1000x higher than the original strain (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.07.21260122v2, which also explains some data that I have seen in our samples) and together with increasing info on breakthrough infections, wearing masks seems to be still important to protect vulnerable folks (incl unvaccinated) but also to curb the reservoir and reduce other burdens of the disease (such as neurological symptoms, which might also manifest in vaccinated folks, though data is still a bit sparse).

If one follows the actual data, it is actually not terribly conflicting. The issue is more of one nuance. Masks have a higher impact on the wearer not infecting others, but offers only limited protection in most cases. It is not nothing, but even cloth masks provide a little bit of barrier. As iNow mentioned, specific masks and respirators can provide more protection for the wearer, but requires proper fitting and correct use, which is not often feasible for day-to-day use for many folks.

I think debunking has become a bit of an issue, many folks have been increasingly resilient to that. So much in fact that even the most ridiculous notions are getting a serious platform.

I think in the last few decades it does seem that in most Western countries the right has weaponized anti-science sentiments and made it part of their platform. A common sentiment I hear from colleagues is that progressive/left parties ignore science when inconvenient, conservative/right parties attack science. While the situation could reverse if the progressive parties become more authoritarian, it is certainly not the trend (in developed countries) for the last few decades.

I think that actually has become kind of relevant. In the past, these ideas were mostly considered fringe and certainly were not part of mainstream. Mostly in the US the (religious) conservatives had always a certain anti-science stance on certain key issues (including evolution and climate change) which has increasingly fueled underlying anti-intellectualism. In a similar line, right-wing groups have increasingly used the actually fairly old "Luegenpresse" tactic to discredit mainstream information flow, which included science reporting. While it may have been a tactic of sorts at the beginning, in several parties throughout the world it now has become an identity, mostly associated with right wing parties (though one could argue that authoritarianism might be the more defining trait). Thus, the combination of detaching oneself from information (fueled by propaganda and social media), embracing certain anti-scientific tenets as in-group identification in an organization with power (i.e. party) has, IMO made anti-science far more mainstream than it was before. Right now we see how what we might consider to be fringe or nutcase attitudes is costing hundreds and thousands of lives. I think at some point we might need to acknowledge that this goes beyond a bit of scorekeeping or some wacky weirdness. It has increasingly significant consequences.

While relationships are often analyzed using specific loci, that is likely not what OP is referring. If we talk about cousins the number refers to the averaged total of the total DNA that is being shared. You get ~50% of your DNA from each of your parents, for example. Same goes for a sibling and thus, on average you will have 50% in common with your siblings. There is variability there as you might not get the exact same allele from either parent as your sibling is getting. The comparison vs chimpanzees is based on an entirely different metric. The 99.8% number is not based on sequence identity (as it would among siblings), but only focuses on genes which we pretty much have the same as chimpanzees. So it is not an apple to apple comparison. I think even then the value is actually slightly lower, because IIRC the 99.8 was based on partial sequences.

I think the view is a bit limited there. Or perhaps the phrasing is unclear. There is a general correlation of the age of either parent with chromosomal issues, but also mutations (i.e. sub-chromosomal issues). So depending on how you define chromosomal issues (which, btw, can be very subtle) it can still influence the child's health. I.e. genetics-related issues on many levels are associated with the age of the parent. But even ignoring the plethora of non-chromosomal issues, I am not sure what to make of the claim that as long as there are no chromosomal issues it would be fine. I could also say more broadly that if there are no genetic issues, then it is fine. But we do know that these issues increase with age, so it reads a bit weird to me. Going back on topic, though, the majority of health issues associated with older parents are actually not large-scale chromosomal issues, but often likely unknown mutations that can increase the risk of autism, schizophrenia, leukemia and some other conditions. I should also point out that especially autism and schizophrenia tend to be more closely associated with the father's age. Studies have shown that the mutation rate in the paternal germ line exhibit more mutation than the maternal, so might qualify the OP in that regard, too.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/563874-fauci-paul-doesnt-know-what-hes-talking-about-and-i-want-to-say-that

Indeed. He spent a ton of time to create those. His initial lectures were, by all accounts, horrible. Typical for someone with a deep understanding of the subject but without really understanding the knowledge gap between himself and his audience. That being said it is true for most scientists that they tend to be better known if they do more outreach, book writing etc., as there are obviously more interactions with the public. Much research which is critical for a given field simply does not percolate through society. And perhaps conversely, folks who are stuck in the lab or entirely focused on research, rarely become famous except if there are some breakthroughs that somehow chimes with the public. It does help to have a Nobel prize, though.

While I agree to some extent, I think the objective is a tricky word. There is always some context in history and historiography is an important element to interpret how folks interpreted events. History is rarely only about the sequence of events and the moment someone tried to connect dots it is almost impossible to not be coloured somewhat by the experience, knowledge and perspective of the historian. Even in science history the story of Henrietta Lacks or the role of Rosalind Franklin can be accurately presented in very different ways.

Nope, if you closely read what I was writing I said that "Transition is a medical process controlled by the physician following best practices. ". I.e. the physician works with the patient and figures out a process that works for them. However, as we are discussing transgender athletes and specifically testosterone has been mentioned a couple of times it is rather clear that we are talking about folks who have undergone some form of hormone therapy. For example, folks only taking psychological counseling would obviously not lower their testosterone levels by that. And again, there are well-established regimens and targets for folks undergoing transgender hormone therapy which is done in close supervision with their physicians. Only if the therapy holds, do testosterone levels remain suppressed in the range corresponding to their transition targets. So it is generally not something folks can just toy around with, and especially unlikely in feminizing treatment as overdosing does not provide a performance boost as in doping (the opposite, actually) and on top can have side effects if not carefully managed. But again, that is something a transgender person agrees to do to address issues such as clearly diagnosed gender dysphoria. So again, do you think that there are folks that are mainly just transitioning for the purpose in dropping into an easier competition bracket?

Yes, basically. At very low doses most mercury can be excreted with a half life of a few days to two weeks. However, especially at higher dosages the excretion pattern becomes more biphasic with a the fast phase (i.e. <2 weeks half life) only eliminating part of the ingested mercury. The rest follows a much slower (1-2 months half life) elimination pattern. If your intake outpaces the elimination time, you start accumulating which can result in issues.

I think the question was more how close Japan was to surrender even without the twin atomic bombs (or after the first). That being said, when it comes to the morality of the issue, the firebombings (or general attacks involving civilian targets) has been part of the discussion. That being said, I am not sure what the general consensus is (or if one exists). Certainly it generated quite a bit of literature and discussion.

For starters, because how the drugs work. As part of the transition you take estrogen and androgen blockers. If dosed correctly, testosterone values settle around levels of cisgender women. These drugs also eventually reduce performance. So how would cheating look like? Do you mean they fake transition and only take just enough to dip that they barely fall into the women's bracket without losing too many advantages? I have a hard time following the actually proposed scenario here. I also have no idea what the one size fits all refers too. Transition is a medical process controlled by the physician following best practices. Do you mean to say that instead of taking what their MD describes folks instead aim for arbitrary competition levels? You know that we are still talking about a medical procedure to address a specific condition (e.g. gender dysphoria). How about you spell out exactly what you think a transgender person is actually doing instead of making insinuations and make me guess. I try to be clear and tend to provide references but I do not feel I am getting anything back here.

Yet we still face massive inequity in vaccine distributions, we did not have a global strategy to combat the global threat and worse, we got folks driving the virus up by pretending it is harmless or does not exist. Countries which so far were able to at least somewhat control it are at danger of facing the variants. Rich countries meanwhile pretend that with vaccination the threat is over and might spread more virus around without getting sick.

Do you have evidence that folks would increase their regimen beyond their recommended dosages? Also note that typical targets during transitions are typically below competition thresholds from what I have seen. So if their transition is well adjusted, their levels should be below those thresholds. If levels are that high usually treatment continues until they fall in the typical female range. If I understand you correctly, you just assume that folks would overdose? If that has not been reported, we would arguing a strawman here. Also, do you understand the concept of *increased* risk? If someone is taking medication for transition, which element increases their risk beyond base level? Finally, it seems that the rest of the thread was arguing about the increases performance and testosterone levels and now the issue is that they are taking too much drugs to reduce their levels? Is there anything they are allowed to do?

*Points at global co-operation during current pandemic*

Quickly followed by new border walls. Now everywhere.

Same here, and the pandemic has vastly deepened it.

So, this part implies that they take drugs specifically to make a testosterone target for competition purposes. Your follow-up post does not really help me to further contextualize it and as such remains open to a number of interpretations. So for example it could be read as if you are assuming that transgender folks are taking drugs to make competition targets. That of course is not the case, as transgender hormone treatment is part of their regular regimen with the aim to decrease testosterone levels. So considering that there are doing it anyway, there is no increased risk. Another interpretation is that you are generally objecting to hormonal therapy in principle. As such, I do not understand what your argument is aiming at. I also have got issues with your other response to my earlier post, but maybe we can start here.

Honest question, did you read any of that and if so how do you get to this interpretation. Are you aware what transition entails? I have the feeling that you work under a number of assumptions which are likely to be misunderstandings, but your comments are too cryptic to me to figure out where they are.

I think that the example is counterproductive as it actually does not necessarily indicate the effects of transition. While they are likely to retain an advantage, I would like to see actual data by how much that declines over a given treatment regimen. Studies haves shown for example that military transwomen retained some performance benefits over their peers, but not all of them. See e.g. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102329: In other words, one needs data rather than opinion or anecdotes to dissect this issue.

The link I provided shows an analysis of averages, which is shrinking with distance, which considering the sample size gives a decent estimate of expected differences. If one is really interested one might get more data from the authors. A discussion of possible female advantages can be found here. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01417-2 So going back to you, have you similar data to question those conclusions? Note that for ultradistance open water competitions women beat out men by over 10% and hold records, too (papers from Knechtle et al.). So there is good reason to assume endurance advantage (discussed in the paper).

To the first part, I do not think that any of us without deep reading into the biology of long-distance running can really make but the most superficial assumption on what traits are really critical for ultramarathons and how that relates to gender differences. To the second part, having a lot of data is exactly the point. If your hypothesis is that men have categoric advantages over women in the performance of anything, we want to get large data sets and look how the distribution is. For example if the top 0.01% is all men but we see large overlap in the rest of the 99.99% of the distribution then we can not clearly conclude that men are biologically advantaged. Rather, it points to a fact that there is a small group of men (over all women and most other men) that might be . And then it would make much less sense to exclude transgender women in that given category. Conversely, if we got a large or at least clear separation in performance then one might conclude the opposite.