You did not give me an example lmao.

You gave me an example of people arguing that trans people should be included in sports, in real life, and are trying to use this as evidence that there's a problem with research ignoring biology in favor of gender identity.

Is your argument seriously "well this book argues that we should include trans people, that's bad because I believe it's bad"

I'm asking you to evidence your claims meaningfully.

This necessarily means that they do not ignore sex differences in the way you claim they do, because their argument is made from a biological standpoint.

Also, the research EXPLICITLY addresses performance concerns, which necessarily means that they do consider the unique physicalities of trans GNC individuals to compare them to cis counterparts.

Do you have the direct citation that says this?

To have*

Social barriers are social.

This is a tautology that no one seriously inquiring into fucking research should need to be explained.

Your implication, however, is that gender identity has been considered more relevant than sex, which is a laughable premise.

This is not evidence that sex isn't considered as a parameter in contemporary research, to the contrary, it's evidence that initiatives are being taken to do so.

My wording is deliberate, because until recently biological differences were not meaningfully considered in research.

Show me a single piece of evidence that sex, where relevant, is being substituted for gender identity.

If there's such a bias, you should be able to easily find it.

Ok so you have no evidence. You're swinging at windmills as you start to feel the cognitive dissonance set in.

Show me a single piece of evidence that biological properties such as sex are not being considered in any contemporary research where biology is directly relevant.

bsky.app/profile/radi...

Do you have a single piece of evidence that sports research has ever included trans women without the researcher explicitly noting it?

This is appalling.

'Freedom-restricting harassment' is exactly what being 'gender critical' (not my choice of name, but anyway) is.

Trying to equate criticism and a few hurty words with a campaign to deny people a right to exist, to have rights, to use toilets, to their life... #BriannaGhey

Oh and finally, there's no evidence that social attitudes and behaviours exhibited by trans people are any different than those exhibited by cis people of the same gender. This even further dampens the possibility that data would be biased due to their inclusion.

Further, studies that accept your framing will be inherently skewed, because anyone who is in the know about gender critical tactics will refuse to participate in a study framed as such. That is likely a more significant risk of bias.

Sex is entirely irrelevant in any research that doesn't explicitly contain a biological component.

Less than 1% of the world's population is openly trans. There is no evidence and it is logically unsound to assume that their inclusion in studies would meaningfully skew results.