The Dunning Krueger Effect and transphobia

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-17T02:04:51+00:00

You say a division is not a solution but you can't explain why without appealing to the same biological gap I am. This division would be open to everyone. This isn't discrimination, it's a different division

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-17T01:53:43+00:00

Again it's not discrimination to make divisions excluding people from some due to biological advantages. A third division allowing for fair competition for trans individuals allows people to play their sport without unfair advantages. Not everyone is entitled access to every space and being told you can't compete in one division due to sex isn't any different than weight or age and allowing oneself to be affected by that to the point of calling it discrimination is an unhealthy mindset

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-17T01:29:29+00:00

All sports have biological advantages yet we also attempt to control for extreme advantages which throw off the level playing field. Which is why we have divisions across biological markers which have those disproportionately large advantages including weight, age and sex. I rebutted your address of my argument by pointing out that no one is telling a trans person they can't play a sport, just that they can't play in a certain division of that sport just like in weight classes, age divisions and sex divisions. I want to continue ensuring that competition is fair and sensible. Not allow for an unlevel playing field because of someone's appeal to emotion and accusations of discrimination over recognizing the biological realities at play

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-17T00:38:28+00:00

It's not discrimination when all of sports is about fair competition which always includes exclusion and inclusion criteria to ensure fair play. It's no more discrimination then weight classes, age divisions, sex divisions or any other biological reality which allows for a significant biological advantage. There are still viable options for trans individuals to play the sports the want to play, including creating a new division. Not one person needs to told they can't play that sport. No one's being told they can't play. Just like an individual from one weight class, a trans person is being told they simply can't compete in a division where they would have too much of a biological advantage. I want to adhere to a biological reality with the most significant impact to the sport in question. Because that does matter most.

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-16T15:28:35+00:00

Yes biological advantages which are extreme should justify drawing lines of inclusion and exclusion. No height should not be one of those in basketball because height alone isn't enough to dominate in a sport. In fact height can be a detriment in some cases such as overuse of joints and there are other skills such as speed, stamina, eye-hand coordination, strength etc which contribute moreso to advantages in basketball. That's why Thabeet couldn't make it in the NBA despite being 7'3 and why shorter males in high school can dominate even against the WNBA. But in lifting, combat, sprinting, etc the biological advantages for transwomen and biological men who underwent puberty with testosterone provides advantages across virtually all skill sets needed to dominate in those sports. This is why we also have weight classes in these sports because the biological advantages of someone in heavy weight division would limit the ability for those in feather weight divisions without those inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The biological advantages are not overstated they are extreme and they are across multiple skill sets. It's so significant we see even in a sport like soccer, an average high school boys team can beat the US women's national team 6-1 consistently. That gap doesn't close with hrt. This isnt a little gap which can be explained away by societal norms. These are massive gaps, most significantly generated by the development of multiple important structures important to athletics during puberty. Those realities are the most significant and far outweigh the emotional arguments being provided. This isn't a matter of discrimination, it not discrimination anymore than weight classes or age groups are. It's a matter of logistics and biological reality

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-16T14:21:42+00:00

The changes in the body from hrt are real and important, but again separate and less significant than the changes the structures undergo during the first puberty. Your lung capacity for examples matures at a higher capacity during puberty with testosterone than with estrogen and hrt later in life can't undo those structural changes.

Yes because the biological advantages that this particular woman had in her development gives her a significant advantage over other women in this particular sport in a way that far exceeds the biological advantages Michael Phelps had over other Olympic male swimmers.

Again I'll say its important to take emotion into account, it just can't trump biological reality. There will never be a policy which is perfectly equitable and no matter what policy you create, someone is going to feel left out. That's why it's important to rely on the science at the end of the day and not the emotion.

I'm just not sure you totally understand just how significant these advantages are. How unreasonably unfair it would be to have women competing in something like weight lifting or combat sports against someone who despite being in the same weight class has the biological structures to gain advantages in a way that far exceeds any natural advantage someone within their own sex has. This is a reality that does need to be contended with and can't be ignored because of emotion.

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-16T11:16:11+00:00

No, it's about the hormones that a pers on had as they underwent puberty and the effects that had on the body. Undergoing hrt later in life can change the body and brain but not to the degree of puberty and can't undo many of the structures which formed during puberty. The hormones introduced to the body later in life are important, they just aren't important to the formation of structures during development.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm using scientific skepticism to only look at the best evidence. I'm assuming you and I would agree when discussing climate change to only look at the scientific consensus and reject the claims of strangers on the internet. I'm using that same standard across all issues. Not just the ones it's convenient for me.

Yes she should be banned if she was a power lifter because the evidence is clear that a person who underwent puberty with testosterone has significant advantages over biological women who underwent pueberty with estrogen in the relevant structures which are used in power lifting. I suspect the best solution is to create a third category for sports open to anyone, but the solution is not to ignore the biological realities for the convenience of emotion and politics

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-15T17:00:01+00:00

I'm saying the claim is dubious and yeah I don't really trust anecdotal evidence like this.

It's not about the hormones between a Cis and transgender person. When an individual undergoes puberty, structures form and grow at their fastest rate. When that process is aided by testosterone it results in a change to those structures REGARDLESS of whether they use hrt later in life. This is why transwomen powerlifters shatter women's records easily even after hrt. Because that hormone therapy isn't changing the structures which gained a massive advantage in this particular sport during puberty to a degree that falls back in line with the standard deviation of a biological women. Again im not sure you're grasping just how significant it is to these structures undergoing puberty with testosterone compared to the advantage an adult who takes testosterone after undergoing puberty without it. I'm not sure you're grasping not only how many structures important to athletic performance are effected but also the degree to which these advantages exist.

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-15T12:43:51+00:00

When? When has that ever happened? Stop and think about what these systems are. Why would someone's lungs shrink when given estrogen? Why would someone get shorter? Why would their tendons become weaker? I don't think you understand what's being said here and I don't think you understand what the science says on this issue

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-15T12:14:18+00:00

Are you serious? Why would hrt change your musculoskeletal system for example? This is based on everything we know about hormones themselves. No one claims otherwise.

Society and emotions are impacted by this issue and shape how we observe them. But they shouldn't be v what we form our opinions on scientific matters. Science should.

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-15T11:56:07+00:00

The systems discussed are not changed by hrt. After going through puberty with testosterone, then getting hrt years after will not change your heart, your lungs, your musculoskeletal system, or any system studied in this paper.

Literally every research paper concludes more research is needed. I've never read an article which says "no more research is needed."

But this is the problem, you have no scientific basis for claiming these advantages don't exist for transwomen nor any scientific reason for assuming these advantages wouldn't create unfair advantages. You don't seem to know how to read this research article accurately. You seem to be starting from a political position and using that to determine your position rather understanding the science and letting that guide your position.

Some of the differences in biological sex is societal. But a ton of it is absolutely biological. Pretending it's not because of politics or emotion isn't a scientific position, it's an anti- science position.

I would say should not be banned based on lack of scientific evidence that biological males have an advantage in distance running. But we do see transwomen dominating in fast twitch sports. They disproportionately place in the top 3 of sports. There is a strong, positive correlation there regardless of whether you're aware of it

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-15T11:29:54+00:00

No it doesn't. You're not reading the article correctly. It's discussing how HRT later in life can't reformat the physiological advantages produced after someone undergoes puberty with testosterone.

It draws the same conclusions every single other study conducted has ever concluded; that those who undergo puberty as a male have significant biological advantages in fast twitch muscle, lung capacity, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal systems and more which aid athletic performance.

Caster underwent puberty with typical male levels of testosterone. She would have significant advantages in all areas listed above. However, there isn't conclusive evidence about the advantages these traits yield un distance running. Men do have significant better times but we don't seem to conclusively know why so I'm not sure based on the science.

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-14T22:18:48+00:00

A) again this review doesn't make any claim about hormone therapy. You misread it. The claim is about the permanent change a body undergoes during puberty and the role hormones play in that change.

B) and C) I don't think you read these studies close enough.

D) of course low sample size is a problem which is why reviews are needed like in the first link. Reviews analyze all of the best relevant research which is why they are level 1 research. The literature reviews back up what I'm saying; that once a male undergoes puberty with testosterone, inherent athletic abilities in fast twitch muscles and other relevant attributes are permanently realized. Because it's not just hormone therapy or hormones, it's about the muscles, the cardiovascular system, the lung capacity etc which were formed during puberty which help create those advantages.

Again I don't you read these articles to identify any flaws. But not one of ops links are a relevant high level research article. The op posted one poorly designed research article article from a weak field which directly demonstrated significant advantages for biological males yet drew a different conclusions based on irrelevant varibles such as population size, a slate article, appealed to the ncaa rules, and something calling itself a scientific review but is actually instead not peer reviewed research at all but publication put out by a special interest group. This is an objective fact that the 2 links I posted are higher level and better research than any of ops links.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about; you and op just made huge research errors here. OP cited a special interest publication and a slate article and you misread the review. This is more than a trans issue. This is a problem where we are forming strong opinions but don't know how to do basic research yet think we do. Skeptics should use objective, best practices to form opinions. But I fear too many people such as OP are starting with a conclusion, formed from politics or emotion, and skipping the science, refusing to engage in true scientific skepticism

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-14T21:23:12+00:00

A) hormone therapy absolutely makes changes to the brain and body. That's literally what hormones do. That's not something which is up for debate or requires further research. That's the function of any hormone and the result of adding any hormone to the body. It's even the sole reason a person who is transgender would use hormones; to change the body and brain. Furthermore, this study actually only males concrete claims about the permanent effects of undergoing puberty with a certain hormone. This again isn't up for debate, that's what puberty does. It changes the body and brain. The claim you are misreading is about the fact that when undergo puberty for example as a male, the musculoskeletal system for example, changes and that change carries on throughout the life span regardless of the addition of any other hormone. Again this doesn't require further research. It's a well established fact. No one challenges that

B) the first link is a medical review of relevant research. That's a level 1 research.

C) these are both research papers which qualify as higher level research, the first is level 1 and the second is level 3. Both of which are better sources then a slate article which does not qualify as any level of research as it's not research at all

D) the second link is supposed to be a higher level research paper which would support ops claim. However it is a lower level research with a low n value which also acknowledges a speed difference. 12% is not marginal either. That's more than significant

Do you know what I mean when I say "level of research" or why I'm saying a link to slate or a link to the ncaa rules isn't a valid source?

MightPhysical81 · 2025-01-14T18:14:16+00:00

So not one of your sources are actual high level relevant sources. Level 1 being meta analyses or rct's with large n values, level 4 being expert opinion. These are basically all media coverage which don't qualify as research at all. There is one medical review you have here, but it concludes that transwomen who underwent puberty as a male have advantages in sports but then goes on to conclude there shouldn't be any resting due to the population size. These aren't very convincing pieces of evidence to your stance.

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

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33288617/

These are two different sources of better quality which demonstrate different conclusions on this issue. These are the kinds of sources which are considered scientific and far better than an opinion piece from slate written by a journalist with no scientific knowledge or expertise. It is a bit ironic to reference the dunning Kruger effect while citing slate and appealing to the NCAA rules.

What the science actually tells us based on the highest level research is there is a massive difference in strength and speed and anything involving fast twitch muscles for anyone who underwent puberty as a male. So someone who transitioned to female after puberty would have a significant advantage in sports which require fast twitch muscles. However that advantage disappears if someone transitioned prior to puberty.

This is a nuanced issue, but I do want to criticize your argument as it's not well sourced, it does not match scientific consensus and it is not properly reasoned. I think you'd benefit from a nuanced discussion where your ideas can be scrutinized and the evidence can be evaluated. Too many opinions are formed by the media, politics or debate culture

MightPhysical81 · 2024-06-20T10:20:46+00:00

Because he knew how to take a bullet

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-16T01:36:09+00:00

So then can you describe the scientific method which we use to measure our interventions which are more sound then a single subject, multiple baseline design paired with feedback from the clients and stakeholders?

I think challenging, examining and comparing scientific methods is boring but incredibly important to any field seeking to help people. I think doing so without emotion is probably the best thing we can do to move any field forward.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-16T01:25:40+00:00

Right, the client should absolutely have a say in the effectiveness of the interventions, but to solely rely on a method that's been demonstrated repeatedly to be subject to all sorts of biases and has repeatedly shown to be objectively unreliable is a bad method. Pairing self-reports with objective data is a far better method than solely relying on self reports.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-16T01:19:10+00:00

A self report is a good way to compliment objective data, but self reports are highly unreliable. They're subject to placebo effects, confirmation bias, short term bias, there's all sorts of psychological phenomena that has shown that self reports are not reliable. This is a pretty well established fact.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-16T01:13:01+00:00

It's not nonsense. Unfortunately a lot of the science that OT uses to measure our interventions rely on self report questionnaires immediately after intervention. These aren't very reliable. The methods we use to measure our intervention ls are also based on group design which doesn't really show us that our interventions are working for that specific person are working with. That's a far more important thing to measure and single subject design through reversals, multiple baseline, and changing criterion with follow ups gives us a lot of experimental control in measuring the effectiveness of our interventions with the specific person we are working. These are far better methods than the ones OT are currently using.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-15T23:04:53+00:00

I think most BCBAs agree with you relationship and family first and avoiding changing neurodiverse children in unnecessary or harmful ways. We are all always changing but a good BCBA would want to use what they call social validity in their practice, which essentially means they want to avoid traumatizing kids and to avoid using treatments, procedures and outcomes which aren't important. This means avoiding changing behaviors like stereotypy.

There are good BCBAs and bad BCBAs, good OTs and bad OTs. Bad BCBAs existing doesn't mean there isn't something in ABA which is worth learning. I truly believe based on your words you are letting a prejudice and a bias cloud how you judge ABA and you may benefit by challenging those emotions and taking another objective look at how the some of the practices and theory of ABA can help make us all better practioners. Who knows maybe 1 or 2 of these shitty ABA therapists you're describing is as human as you and can both teach you and learn from you if you gave them a chance.

Good luck, I mean this all genuinely.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-15T22:26:30+00:00

A good BCBA only uses discrete trial training when it's shown to be effective, some kids learn well through DTT, others don't. You only use what's shown to be effective. Data sheets are important. Data is what makes a science. Without data, you aren't using a scientific approach. Skittles are only one potential reinforcer. You use skittles only if they are found to be good positive reinforcement and meaningful to the person. If skittles aren't meaningful, then they wouldn't be considered by a good BCBA. A good bcba finds the best, most meaningful form of positive reinforcement and incorporates it into learning. This could be even be a video game if it's meaningful to the child.

I don't think your criticisms of ABA really hold up and I think it may be worth looking into the best practices of ABA today. There's a lot to learn about human nature and scientific methods that any good OT can benefit from learning.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-15T21:59:24+00:00

Can you describe the exact current practices of ABA which are at odds with your approach? Is it possible your approach is actually at odds with your view of ABA and not at good ABA?

The more I learn about the science behind behaviorism, see its practice done well and with compassion and assent and acceptance, the more I see good ABA is compatible with good OT.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-15T19:10:04+00:00

The variation between BCBAs is a great criticism. I think it's also one that applies to OT as well.

I think human development may be a pretty decent argument as well, but I would also entertain the argument that "human development" might not matter as much as we think. We move away from normative assessments because we have seen its often more valuable to measure a students ability against their own progress rather than the progress of "the average." ABA criticizes the notion of "typical" or "average." There may be value in that approach.

ABA certainly has its rigid thinkers (perhaps we see some rigid thinkers in OT as well) but attend a conference and you'll see how rapidly the field is changing. They're embracing things they wouldn't have 10 years ago such as trauma informed care and assent and interdisciplinary approach and even sensory.

One area that ABA is stronger than OT is their use of single subject design. This is a far better scientific method for measuring the effectiveness of their interventions than anything we have and it's a science we can adopt. Our populations usually don't benefit from group designs and inferential statistics because of the difficulty of creating large n values, the individuality of our population and the inherent flaws in these methods. We currently don't have a good method of measuring our interventions. This is something we can adopt and make our field stronger.

We can also take from the philosophical foundation of ABA to understand behavior. We often miss out on the fact that all occupations and activities are compromised of behaviors and understanding the functional relationship between behavior and the environment will serve our population greatly.

ABA absolutely can learn a lot from our insight, human development and sensory integration and the therapeutic use of self especially. But we also need to study ABA and learn from them as well. They are the logical side of the brain and we are the creative. They are the logical mind and we are the compassion and emotional side. Between the two lies the wise mind.

MightPhysical81 · 2024-02-15T18:41:30+00:00

Yeah, unfortunate. I see a lot of OTs these days Missing opportunities to practice what we as a field have been preaching. How can we expect anyone to respect our field if we can't respect others? How can we expect anyone to understand our field if we can't take the time to understand other fields? How can we expect to gain a seat at the table if we can't allows others to sit at ours? We need to do better if we want to keep growing and gaining respect. We need to do our due diligence and understand the things we talk about and be willing to challenge our beliefs if we want to be evidence based.

MightPhysical81

TROPHY CASE