prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
I didn't see the former (was it in that post and I just really fucked up and read right over it without engaging brain? Even If not...I will freely admit to not having read the whole thread--which is solely on me and my fault still, but at least a little less embarrassing), and the 'alluding to' statement was referring to is this bit (which I had but then got replaced by the quoted bit by accident).And given that I explicitly stated that trans women participate under hormone level restrictions, I fail to see what claim you believe I'm "alluding to".
It just seems odd to reference or treat the IOCs decision in general as any kind of authoritative item or one that suggests much of anything when it's based on nothing (or seriously lacking study) according to both critics--from both sides of the whole trans issue--and the IOC itself. That was the extent of my point, really. The IOCs shooting in the dark and still going off preexisting presumptions of differences existing, so arguing they studied the issue and determined no performance difference...isn't accurate?The current conclusion of the IOC is that, contrary to stereotype, trans women under hormone treatment have no measurable performance advantage over cis women.
Apologies for my confusion and screw-ups.