the article you share concludes that trans women have no advantage which is greater than other biological advantages
Noit doesn’t. You are misrepresenting it, or misuing the word ‘concludes’. It never says anything like “we conclude’ that there is no advantage”. The actual conclusion is on p40-41 and can more honestly be phrased as “we cannot conclude that there’s a definite advantage. Strength is a possible exception, but how do we even know strength is relevant to sport?” (“Additional biomarkers (such as handgrip strength, hip angle, bone density) have been
used uncritically in positivist biological studies to demonstrate cis men’s purported
biological advantages over cis women, but there is not sufficient evidence these
measures are salient to the question of trans women’s participation.”)
Did you mean ‘yes’. Because the article you share concludes that trans women have no advantage which is greater than other biological advantages
Noit doesn’t. You are misrepresenting it, or misuing the word ‘concludes’. It never says anything like “we conclude’ that there is no advantage”. The actual conclusion is on p40-41 and can more honestly be phrased as “we cannot conclude that there’s a definite advantage. Strength is a possible exception, but how do we even know strength is relevant to sport?” (“Additional biomarkers (such as handgrip strength, hip angle, bone density) have been used uncritically in positivist biological studies to demonstrate cis men’s purported biological advantages over cis women, but there is not sufficient evidence these measures are salient to the question of trans women’s participation.”)