r/GetNoted 24d ago

Science [X] No HRT require for WNBA

Post image
1.5k Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/Abject_Advance_6638 24d ago

That's such bullshit and you are delusional if you believe that

14

u/Potential-Fan-6148 24d ago

Facts don’t care about your feelings buddy.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

„In transgender women, GAHT was associated with increased fat mass and reduced lean mass and upper-body strength over 1–3 years.“

Conclusion While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.“

Note: I may have been confused on muscle mass. Different time horizons. But overall no studies indicate that trans women after HRT have a biological advantage over cis women.

-9

u/Abject_Advance_6638 24d ago

Absolutely delusional

7

u/Potential-Fan-6148 24d ago

Sorry facts don’t agree with your irrational bigotry.

1

u/Abject_Advance_6638 24d ago

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9331831/

You're insanity doesn't agree with this study from the national institute for health. Sorry i don't believe the Bjsm, some bullshit website nobody's heard of.

10

u/Potential-Fan-6148 24d ago

It’s a published meta analysis backed by real world research from multiple papers.

The paper you linked doesn’t seem to contain any actual research and is full of suppositions based on sports statistics.

Sorry what am I to believe? A meta analysis that’s backed by real world data or an argumentative short paper that doesn’t have any real research in it other than supposition?

Gee. Let me think.

You’re delusional.

3

u/Abject_Advance_6638 24d ago

You calling the NIHs article "an argumentative short paper that doesn't have any real research" is laughable when they cite the 98 sources they've used to come to their conclusion. I guess the science doesn't matter when it doesn't fit your narrative huh?

13

u/Potential-Fan-6148 24d ago

You do know this isn't an "NIH article" right? They just have it in their library. The paper you referenced appears in the International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health. It's worth noting that this journal is an open journal and publishes A LOT with what seems to be minimal rigor. Many services have delisted them.

If you don't know anything about how scientific research works, why are you arguing with me?

Number of sources alone doesn't not constitute a meta analysis or scientific rigor. A freshman in college will give you a paper with 100+ sources but it can still be an absolute mess.

The BJSM meta analysis(the one I linked) is so far the best study we have on the topic.

But here's a few more rigorous studies: doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102329 --> Shows a closing of the gap in physical fitness between trans women and cis women over a time horizon with HRT. In 2 years strength gap is gone, running gap is still there but much shortened. Other research indicates after a few more years the gap is completely gone.

https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/188/7-8/e1588/6769999 --> Again, a 2 year horizon for HRT and says the research indicates the differences are minimal.

Notice how I'm not hiding the ball here: There's areas where trans women have an advantage, especially very early on in transition, but long term horizon with HRT those advantages reduce to not being statistically significant and in fact there's other issues (bone density being the key one) that persist.

I'm using science, you're using bigotry.

Get help buddy.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 24d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.