• AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From: https://www.bbc.com/sport/61346517

      *Tucker: When boys reach the age of 13-14, things start to change physically and we see increased muscle mass, bone density; [it] changes the shape of the skeleton, changes the heart and the lung, haemoglobin levels, and all of those things are significant contributors to performance.

      Lowering the testosterone has some effect on those systems, but it’s not complete, and so for the most part, whatever the biological differences are that were created by testosterone persist even in the presence of testosterone reduction - or, if I put that differently, even after testosterone levels are lowered.

      It leaves behind a significant portion of what gives males sporting performance advantages over females.*

      So i guess it depends on when the transition happens?

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zoneM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah. There’s a million studies that look at isolated physical traits, but mostly have one of two common problems. 1) they are often written by people with an explicitly anti trans inclusion bias and 2) they look at physical traits in isolation without attempting to quantify if and how those traits apply to sports.

        If trans women can out perform cis women, it only takes one to set a women’s world record, yet that just doesn’t happen. There are often articles claiming this has happened, but when you look closer, it turns out that they’re talking about age/regional/federation specific records that are mis presented as world records.

        If trans women out perform cis women, we should expect to see them more likely to end with podium finishes than the cis women they’re competing with. It should be pretty trivial to gather the data and show that advantage. But it doesn’t happen, because the truth is, trans women are on average, more likely to under perform compared to cis women.

        No study that looks at a trait in isolation and makes educated guesses about the effect of hormone replacement on that trait is ever going to tell you how real world sporting outcomes will be impacted.

        The only thing that will tell you that is actual real world sporting results, and the limited results we have so far don’t show any hint of an advantage. If it is in there, it’s small enough that it’s not immediately obvious. We both know that if it was obvious, the media would be screaming it from the hills.

        Some numbers. There are 50,000 athletes in the Olympics each year. From memory, there have been 4 or 5 Olympics in which trans people have been able to participate. So, that’s at least 200,000 athletes participating in that time. Now, trans people make up 1% of the population. Lets say that trans people are 10x less likely to get involved in sports though due to external factors. Using those numbers, 1 in 1000 of those 200,000 athletes should have been trans, which comes out 200. Lets say trans people are 100 times less likely to participate in sports. Even then, we should have seen 20 trans athletes. And those athletes should have got more gold medals than you would expect. Instead, we have had exactly 1 trans woman athlete in that time, and she came last in her event.

        That’s what people are afraid of.

        No amount of articles about testosterone and puberty change the reality that people are trying to exclude a vulnerable minority to solve a problem they can’t even show to exist in the first place.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Only if your CPU is Intel.

            That Minix-based embedded operating system that Intel CPUs all have is a huge attack surface that can be attacked by anyone capable of sending network packets to the machine, it cannot be protected by the operating system’s firewall, the public cannot audit its code, and it doesn’t receive security updates if your motherboard is more than a few years old. Quite frankly, I find it terrifying and refuse to buy Intel because of it.

  • Martin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That they’re right. You should be able to question your own opinions. A lost art, it seems

  • potcandan@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always think about when I was taught about taste and the human tongue back in grade school, they had these diagrams about zones on the tongue corresponding to sweet, sour, bitter, etc. like a “taste map”. I’m not sure how many generations were taught about it but turns out it just isn’t true at all. So, not like it’s important but you got a lot of misinformed folks out there in regards to taste lol

    • Swintoodles@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That always confused me as a child, since it was super easy to just test it for yourself. Turned out salt tasted salty regardless of where on your tongue it was, the same for the rest of the flavors.

      • potcandan@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup I remember thinking to myself at the time that I must be tasting incorrectly or somehow my tongue is different from everyone else lol.

  • StoneBleach@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That looking too closely at the screen will blind you or damage your eyes. This myth originated decades ago in the 1960s from an advertisement by a television manufacturer. Basically in 1967 General Electric reported that their color TVs were emitting too many x-rays due to a factory error, so health officials recommended keeping children and pretty much anyone else at a safe distance from the screen. The problem was soon resolved, but the myth endured.

    If you ask me I would say that x-ray radiation has little to do with going blind, I have no idea if radiation can actually make you blind, but it’s funny how somehow eye diseases got in the way as the only possible consequences in the myth just because we use our eyes to watch TV.

  • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That by not being ridiculously overtly bigoted, they have actually interrogated and rejected their own bigotry. The former is basic and mostly relies on social conditioning. The latter requires reading history and people who are criticizing things with which you may identify and therefore take very personally. The latter is not taught in school and school does not provide the tools (outside of literacy) to do so, so it’s a difficult, painful, abd regrettably rare thing to see, usually requiring sone trauma to change.

    • CrownCrafter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think what does it for me, is that they can’t be all right at the same time. That implies, that atleast one is wrong.

  • this@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    At the risk of upsetting people, most if not all religions. They can’t all be right.

    • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that a lot of Atheists oversimplify religion. (NB: I’m Atheist myself.)

      “True” and “false” only apply to statements about reality (epistemic). And sure, religion has a lot of them: “God exists”, “if you fornicate you’ll go to Hell”, “the world was created in seven days” etc. I think that most of them are false.

      However a religion isn’t just its epistemic statements. It’s also morals, practices/rituals, and a community. Those things cannot be true or false, because they are not statements about reality. You need another ground to refer to them, as “good” vs. “bad” (deontic).

      • OddFed@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but atheism does not mean nihilism. It doesn’t even mean opposing religions in general. It simply means you do not believe in a higher (or multiple) being often referred to as “god”.

        Do I believe in the power of love? Yes! Do I spiritually put my family and friends over anything else? Yes! Do I believe that I need to help people, even though it is not beneficial for me? Yes! Do I believe that placebo works? Yes! …

        • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m aware - and that’s part of my reasoning.

          Atheism itself isn’t even a whole set of epistemic statements. It’s lack of belief in one statement. It doesn’t imply any sort set of values (like nihilism, secular humanism, satanism… or even the ones from the religions), nor give you any practice (no mass, no “it’s Salah time, drop what you’re doing for a prayer”), nor it makes you part of a community (much more than “we don’t believe in centaurs, we should hang around togerther” would).

          And Atheists often transpose that into religion, oversimplifying it into “you believe in one or more gods”. But religion was never just that, it’s a lot more things. And most of those things can be good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, but not true or false.

          • OddFed@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, but I’m not sure where someone stated something like this in this thread? Especially because the initial post followed a completely different logical reasoning.

            • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              OP asked “something many people believe but is not true”. The other poster replied “religion”. I’m showing that religion contains things that are not true, but religion as a whole cannot be true or false.

    • Arache Louver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      haha it depends, for religious people their credence is everything in their life, is their true. Of course I am with development of reason and science, but, as Adorno said once, if you retire a system of credence from people who have not known something more than religion, their entire life loose all its content… that’s why I also learned to be more shy to argue about others people religious feelings, believings, because it is something very respected and symbolized. Also, Hegel said that religious thought is like a “phase” of “society thought”, a phase that has be to analized and lived by every person (and lived by the society itself)…

      • this@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea I more or less agree with that sentiment. I myself am an athiest but I view religion in general as a coping mechanism, and real or not if you take away coping mechanisms then you risk doing actual harm to people(psychologically), which is why I try to be as anti-evangelical and secular as I can. I just wish people would stop using it as justification for the shitty things they do. I wouldn’t mind more people thinking like I do but they have to come to that conclusion on their own.

  • unnecessarily@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Americans: You’re not tired after eating Thanksgiving dinner because of tryptophan in the turkey, you’re tired because you ate a lot of food.

  • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That cold water will boil faster than warm water.

    It’s a confusion. You should always cook with cold tap water, not hot, because hot tap water can contain excessive amounts of lead.

    There are several instances where hot water can freeze faster than lukewarm water. I believe people saw this on shows such as Bill Nye and then forgot the specifics.