If you wrote for not only a non scientist, but also a non athletics guy, it would help. And no, I am suggesting the rest of the anti trans phalanx are trying to "own the libs", not you. But you probably got that anyway.The science isn't laughable, their selective use of the science is.
There is more to the male advantage than testosterone levels. If that is the totality of their position, their position is a total joke. It could only be explained by a willful ignorence at the level of a Trump supporter.
Also the idea that the advantages of higher test levels go away after 12 months is questionable at the very least. With muscle memory someone who nears their genetic limits with test [natty or otherwise, or even exceed natty limits] will even with lower test should be able to maintain higher muscle levels than someone who never had test. This is probably why some would wait for 10 years for the good shit. Some guy saying, Oh I quit roids a year ago, natty now would be laughed at. It's about up there with Ronnie Coleman or Dwayne Johnson claiming to be natty.
"All INBF/WNBF athletes must be 10 years drug free of prescription/pharmaceutical hormones on the banned substance list and two years free of over-the-counter hormones, pro-hormones or banned substances listed or their chemical counterparts, unless otherwise noted, prior to their first INBF or WNBF competition."
My point is that political correctness is where reality goes to die. It's sort of like Fox News. Again from what I've seen, it's pretty much at the level of what you posted in the blue.
Also some more recent research
On Chair Force members
They maintained a slight advantage on pushups, dropped on situps and maintained an advantage on the 1.5 mile run after 2 years
Testosterone and Transgender Athletic Performance : Finding a path for inclusion for transgender athletes - BJSM blog - social media's leading SEM voice
Testosterone and female sports Participation in exercise and sports has many health benefits and all people should have the opportunity to participate. After puberty, testosterone gives male athletes a competitive advantage over female athletes. Because of this, female sports are considered a...blogs.bmj.com
In athletes trying to push to their limits, I'd figure it would be even more of an advantage. My father was in the Royal Canadian Chair Force in the 50's, it isn't exactly rigorous. I would thing Marine infanty with their attitude and all the crayons they can eat, the gap would stay wider. Inactive old people also lose strength faster than say Clarence Bass.
Consider elite sport is a matter or percent and milliseconds and even in high school sport, it could make a difference between scholarship or having Aunt Becky sneaking you in.
Of course one study is only one study. I am not a covidiot. However it isn't as if the issue has a huge base of studies on the topic. We probably will never know the full picture.
Also that pwn the libs thing. Really? It's like you don't even know me. Oh yeah, we don't know each other. So I guess it's understandable.
Although Trump was right. His supporters are special... special needs.
Let me throw a couple of curves. First, the problem is actually minuscule, aside from its "culture war" ramifications for our pseudo-GOP thread-mates. If only 3 trans athletes are competing in the Olympics, out of a coterie of 11,000, we're talking about a minor footnote to the Olympic Games. And if so, the science can be sloppy without it being a major impact. IIRC, one of the trans athletes was a Brazilian volleyballer and that doesn't strike me as a particularly test-y sport, so much as having quick reactions. The other that I recall was a weight-lifter. And yup, we're all saying "guys are stronger than girls" on this one. But the genetic women competing in that event are probably highly atypical physiological women as well.
Second, "political correctness" is actually shorthand for government policy in - I would guess - every Western country outside the GOP / evangelical nutbar / Fox News USA. I attended a mandatory "trans inclusion" seminar provided by the Law Society last week. It featured a ftm judge and a ftm law professor and it was introduced by two senior (cis) judges who instructed those listening about "courtesy to trans colleagues and litigants". Essentially, we were given our marching orders.
When the Law Society and the Judiciary in Doug Ford's Ontario instruct the Bar to be trans inclusive, trans inclusion is now the policy - not only of the "SJW woketards", as our buddy Oracle would say - but of the ruling right of centre party in the largest province in the country.
So again, maybe the science is sloppy, but the politics are far more than just "fringe" or "flaky academics".
I glanced at the (highly selective and biased) extract from a science article linked in the OP's post. It was framed as an issue of medical ethics - "is inclusion worth sloppy science?" Apparently there are position papers written by med school academics which go both ways on this. Only the negative article was cited in the (Extremist Christian anti LGBTQ / anti abortion wackjob) site. The article itself was expensively paywalled.
To react to your science, you would have to tell me more about the residual, post hormone therapy advantages that trans women have over genetic women. You need to dumb this down, as in REALLY dumb this down for me to follow what you're saying without having to read it 5 or 6 xx and guess at some stuff.
