Who could have guessed this?

Not me. I bet you couldn’t have guessed it either.

Shockingly, British and American researchers have published a study in the British Medical Journal that shows that, according to their statistical analysis, biological sex has a greater impact on athletic performance than gender identity.

Astonishing news https://t.co/MXa9hhk2Ih pic.twitter.com/jWspZ4lYx1

— Fiona (@DerryBanShee) December 21, 2023

As far as I know, Lia Thomas had no comment.

Abstract

Objectives To test the hypothesis that, controlling for age, natal-sex differences in running performance are lower among non-binary athletes than in the rest of the population. To test the hypothesis that natal-male non-binary athletes outperform natal-female non-binary athletes.

Methods A secondary analysis of 166 race times achieved by non-binary athletes within a data set of 85 173 race times derived from races with a non-binary category in the New York Road Runners database. The natal sex of non-binary athletes was modelled [sic] probabilistically using US Social Security Administration data when it could not be derived from previous races. Race times were used as the outcome variable in linear models with explanatory variables derived from natal sex, gender identity, age and the event being raced. Statistical significance was estimated using Monte Carlo methods as the model was not Gaussian.

Results There was no evidence that controlling for age, natal-sex differences in running performance are lower among non-binary athletes. Natal-male non-binary athletes outperform natal-female non-binary athletes at a confidence level of p=0.1%.

Conclusions Both natal sex and gender identity may be useful explanatory variables for the performance of athletes in mass-participation races. It is, therefore, valuable to include both variables in data collection.

Will wonders never cease? Next, we will learn that the Earth is round, the moon has not an ounce of green cheese on it, and that pigs can’t fly.

The argument, or rather assertion, that gender identity can and should trump biological reality has always been based on a fantasy.

While I am certain that more than a few people pushing alphabet ideology on us do actually believe that the physical capabilities of people that are tied to biology suddenly change when a person becomes delusional about their gender, I am also convinced that a similar number of activists know that this isn’t the case.

They are simply using the power granted them by the elite to force people to submit. Forcing people to mouth things they know are not true is one of the most powerful tools of control one can acquire. This is why communist countries expend a lot of effort to make people do it.

There is nothing absurd about doing a scientific study to confirm something we all know to be true–occasionally, you discover that you were wrong. It is absurd that you have to do a scientific study to confirm what we all know to be true in order to chip away at ridiculous policies based on obvious lies.

If alphabet ideology were the basis for academic study and debate, I wouldn’t be so angry about it. All sorts of ideas are tested and debated in academia, and as long as policies are not based on seemingly absurd and utterly unproven assertions, it can be an interesting intellectual exercise.

Alphabet ideology, though, has never been an intellectual exercise; it has always been about seizing power, and it has worked.

Hence, it is necessary to destroy it by disproving it, but it is more important to dismantle the institutions that imposed it on society based on nothing but assertions that have as much plausibility as cheese’s being the primary component of the moon’s mass.

It should be a basic principle that changing institutions and beliefs requires extraordinary proof that doing so would make the world a better place. Unless you can do that, the presumption should be that the current arrangements are superior.

This principle doesn’t require the belief that we live in the best possible world because we don’t. Instead, it is just a practical recognition that what we have works pretty well, and replacing it with something untried and quite possibly worse is a bad bet.

Putting men into women’s sports was a recognizably bad bet, and people who required it did so with zero evidence that it wasn’t. That alone should have been reason enough to reject the idea.

That it wasn’t tells you how corrupt our institutions have become.