Did people across the world write headlines based on this one housemate? If she wasn't a good example why has she been used as an example for months
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
I'm not sure why you assume that I have a female housemate. I don't. My point is that suggesting that knowledge of a single example (which could be an outlier) is sufficient to understand a wider phenomenon doesn't seem very scientific. I don't recommend arguing this way.
2 replies 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @IonaItalia
The she in my tweet was referencing Hubbard. My point is that people have been arguing for a long time that she proves trans athletes have an unfair advantage, and she lost. It was always a bad argument
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Well, I agree with you there. I just think that the fact that she lost doesn't prove the opposite either. I have never heard of Hubbard, but I do know that you can't prove something like that from a single, isolated example.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @IonaItalia
We could argue, however, that the fact that she is the first trans athlete ever to compete at the Olympics since it was made possible in 2004 says something about whether it is "unfair" or not
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Well, we could. But I'm not very interested in the topic of trans athletes in women's sports. I'll leave that to those that are. I just don't think arguing on the basis of a single example (which could be an outlier) is scientifically convincing.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @IonaItalia
But the point is that the bad-faith arguments have centred on this example for ~months~. And now everyone is just saying "oh well, one example doesn't prove anything" when they were saying the opposite a few days ago
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I've never heard of this athlete or seen any articles about her & I've heard many arguments about transwomen in sports.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @IonaItalia
Well, by my count the Telegraph has covered her at least a dozen times this year, The Guardian a similar number, and The Times have written at least 7 articles. And that's just the first 3 UK outlets I looked at!
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Fair, but my point still stands. You are arguing based on a single example (who could be an outlier) & motivated by politics, not science. It's a really bad idea for a science communicator to do this, because it saps your credibility (which is otherwise excellent, I'm told).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think the context here is important, which one tweet doesn't capture - the debate has very much centred around one or two examples (and particularly Hubbard), and thus my tweet was in response to this
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Again, I also don't think how the debate is centred affects the science. Science doesn't care about how we debate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IonaItalia @GidMK
Also, there are a lot of people with different opinions on this - it's not only Telegraph readers. Some of whom are completely anti-trans, and some of whom have opinions like: 'if the number of transwomen in sport reflected their numbers in the population, the characteristics of
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.