Dr Emma Hilton reviews the science supporting the IOC decision to let male-born transgender athletes into female competition.

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:43 am

Hello everyone. Wonderful to have the chance to speak here tonight. I’ll try not to be too much of a science bore, but I can’t promise anything.

That males as a class are stronger than females as a class is not controversial, and I’m not going to provide any references for that statement. To quote Ani O’Brien:

“Pretending that this isn’t something we have known as a species since the beginning of our collective consciousness is ridiculous.”

Reproductive anatomy aside, the physical differences between males and females were already apparent when our ancestors emerged from the trees, and now, in modern sports, we can measure them precisely. Males can run faster, jump longer, throw further and lift heavier than females. They outperform females by 10% on the running track to 30% when throwing various balls.

So big is the gap, there are 9000 males between 100m world record holders Usain Bolt and FloJo.
So early does the gap emerge, the current female 100m Olympic champion, Elaine Thompson, is slower than the 14 year old schoolboy record holder.
So unassailable the gap has proven to be, virtually all elite sports have a protected female category, to allow females to compete fairly against those with the same female potential, and to win, and, OK, to make a little money maybe.

Boys and girls diverge physically early on in life, at 7 weeks gestation to be somewhat more precise, when genetic makeup drives sex differentiation into male or female forms, and the dimorphic characteristics associated with sex begin to develop. At birth, boys are, on average, taller, heavier and they have, of course, bigger heads. In childhood, they can plank for a longer time, do more pull-ups, run faster. But the differences are not huge, mixed sport prevails in little schools across the world, even though boys never learn to pass the football to girls.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

by 'Wolfie Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:11 pm

After East Germany was found to have been using XXY chromosome females in the Olympics, those records were expunged from the athletics domain, (even though many of those "clean" athletes who were 'runners up' haven't had their own performances raised to replace them (yet..)).

With any drug cheats since, both male and female, their records and results have been wiped (as with Lance Armstrong) or noted as drug-assisted (as with Ben Johnson in the 1980s) or suspicious (Carl Lewis's appearance at some games, and some female Chinese swimmers..).

If the IOC's stance on transgender and sex-change athletes stands, than those events they compete in will become a laughing stock -- or else the IOC may well have to add an entirely new third classification into their record keeping..

Otherwise, they may find that many female Olympic "records" are no longer being accepted by various international sporting bodies ?

Dr Emma Hilton reviews the science supporting the IOC decision to let male-born transgender athletes into female competition. 2300614393

Dr Emma Hilton reviews the science supporting the IOC decision to let male-born transgender athletes into female competition. 2300614393

Dr Emma Hilton reviews the science supporting the IOC decision to let male-born transgender athletes into female competition.

Dr Emma Hilton reviews the science supporting the IOC decision to let male-born transgender athletes into female competition.

Re: Dr Emma Hilton reviews the science supporting the IOC decision to let male-born transgender athletes into female competition.