Critical Analysis

https://xcancel.com/PeterTatchell/status/2088179038804221963

New study: no significant differences between trans & non-trans sportswomen in upper-body strength, lower-body strength or aerobic fitness after hormone therapy

FACT: Trans women athletes do not have a physical fitness advantage compared to other women

https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/08/12/trans-athletes-womens-sports-advantage-scientific-study/

Community Note

This meta-analysis covers mostly non-athletes, rates evidence low/very low certainty, and omits sport-specific performance. It does not reverse retained male advantages post-puberty. World Rugby evidence review: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender

https://xcancel.com/SwipeWright/status/2089569032995283402

After reading this new essay in The Conversation (left), I am convinced these people are either stupid or consciously deceptive. There are no other explanations. Ignorance is no longer possible.

Their entire argument is: "The traits of males and females has some overlap."

And? Show me one person who has claimed otherwise.

Nobody ever engages with the actual arguments people like me are making when we claim "sex is binary." I've made my case countless times in excruciating detail in major news outlets, massive podcasts, and leading academic journals. So have others.

My scholarly article "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes" (right) has now been viewed over 73K times. Anyone paying even a little bit of attention knows it exists and what it argues. It directly addresses and debunks the "multidimensional" model forwarded in the new essay.

Yet these activist scientists refuse to engage with any of the actual substance. They just keep arguing against strawmen.

They are of course free to write up a scholarly rebuttal in the same journal I published my paper. I'd even agree to a series of exchanges in a popular outlet. Or a live dialectic via Zoom or in person.

It's 2026 and we're winning the argument and shaping public policy. At some point (i.e., now) these people will need to engage with the substance of my arguments or slowly wither away to irrelevancy.

There are many avenues available to them if they actually want to engage. My DMs are open. Top journals and major news outlets are increasingly willing to publish the exchange. Many large podcasts will gladly host the debate.

Yet they invariably choose to write and speak only to audiences that already agree with them. It's pathetic.

They're completely out of excuses.

https://xcancel.com/geraldposner/status/2089727557239292169

It's live on Just the Facts: Genocide for Dummies.

A plain-language primer on what the word actually requires under international law, what the recognized cases look like, and why the evidence from Gaza falls short of that standard.

I did not write it as an advocate. I have no brief to defend and no side to win. I wrote it as a primer — the kind of thing you should read before you enter this argument, so that when you do, you know what the word requires and what a competent court would apply.

At the end, I lay out the evidence that would change my mind. Not a rhetorical gesture. A falsifiable standard, in writing, under my name:

Show me an order or a plan to destroy Palestinians as such. Show me a pattern of conduct from which destruction is the only reasonable inference — one that survives contact with the alternative explanation, a brutal war against an enemy embedded in a civilian population. Show me a competent tribunal that has weighed adversarial evidence, with a defense in the room, and returned that verdict.

Bring me those and I will write the correction myself.

Paywall free link in the first reply. Read it before you call Gaza a genocide.

Someone I've known for twenty years lives a couple of blocks away. He is not a partisan, he does not post about the Middle East, and he is not the sort of person who chants anything.

Out of the blue, he asked me: "Do you think there's a genocide in Gaza?"

No, I told him. By every metric that matters — legal, historical, statistical — there is not.

He looked at me the way you look at someone who has just told you the earth is flat. Netanyahu wants to eliminate the Palestinian people, he said. Everybody knows that.

Not a study. Not a court ruling. Not a casualty figure. Just a thing everybody knows.

I have spent forty years as a reporter learning that "everybody knows" is where investigations begin, not where they end.

Tomorrow on Just the Facts: Genocide for Dummies: a plain-language piece on what the word actually means under international law, how Gaza compares on every relevant metric, and why even the strongest case for the genocide charge still doesn't clear the bar the word requires.

By the way, I know the title will bother some readers, and I address that directly in the piece. My argument is not that the subject is trivial — it is that the word is being used by people who cannot define it, at a threshold they have never examined, with a confidence that bears no relationship to the evidence.

https://www.justthefacts.media/p/genocide-for-dummies

https://xcancel.com/JuliaHB1/status/2088690097831248282

The only person responsible for Jason Arday's death is Jason Arday.

He was a liar and a fraud who was rightly exposed for what he really was by academics and journalists who were simply doing their job.

No one forced Arday to make up lie after lie about his life. He chose to do that. And he did it for financial gain and to bask in the applause it brought him.

He used those lies to deceive people into giving him a job he didn't merit, a lucrative book deal he didn't deserve, as well as fame and adulation he didn't earn.

And when he was found out, he called in the police and expensive lawyers to shut his accusers up, and his failed students who complained were branded as racist.

Cambridge University and Jesus College enabled this liar by lauding him as brilliant when he wasn't even mediocre. They should ask themselves why they put their DEI religion above the need for fairness in their appointments processes, above the needs of Arday's students and, most importantly, above the truth.

Arday's family and friends should ask themselves why they chose not to speak out to expose his lies which they must have known to be untrue.

The police should ask themselves why they thought it acceptable to investigate an academic and a journalist simply for asking questions about Arday's fraudulent CV.

The BBC and Arday's many other deluded cheerleaders should ask themselves why they were so desperate to believe Arday's outlandish claims in the face of all the evidence.

The thousands of the great and the good in academia, politics, media and law who signed the Good Law Project letter backing Arday should ask themselves why, without any justification, they outrageously branded Arday's critics as racists who just wanted to bring down a successful black man because of the colour of his skin.

All of these people made their own contributions to Jason Arday's life. And arguably all of them contributed in some way to his decision to take his own life when his fantastical claims were finally exposed for what they really were: lies.

The idea that those who exposed Arday as a lying fraudster are to blame for his death is as laughable as it is outrageous.

The idea that Arday was "hounded" to his death is absurd. He chose to tell every single lie himself and he even chose to continue those lies in his resignation letter from Cambridge. He is not the victim. He is the perpetrator.

The claim that Arday's downfall was only a front page story because he was black is also ridiculous. He chose to tell the lies that made him a front page story in the first place.

I feel sorry for those who loved him. It is very sad that he has chosen to take his own life rather than face the consequences of his own actions, which should have resulted in a criminal conviction for fraud.

But actions have consequences. This isn't about right and left. It's about right and wrong.

https://xcancel.com/MattWalshBlog/status/2089342278099759208

A lot of people aren't going to want to hear this but much of the "depression" that parents (and not just moms) suffer after child birth is due not so much to hormones but to the fact that children, especially babies, are demanding and difficult and require us to subordinate our own needs and desires for their sake. The more selfish you are, the more of an adjustment it's going to be.

Community note

Medical sources say postpartum depression is multifactorial. Rapid drops in estrogen and progesterone after birth are key biological factors, along with sleep loss and adjustment stress. It is not primarily attributed to selfishness.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9312-postpartum-depression

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/postpartum-depression/symptoms-causes/syc-20376617

https://xcancel.com/NeuroSGS/status/2087959408122700224

There’s a surprisingly common statistical mistake when researchers investigate sex differences in the brain and behaviour, and this new study (below) reveals just how bad this problem is.

Imagine hippocampal volume is significantly associated with memory performance in males (p<0.05), but NOT in females (p>0.05).

Does that mean the relationship differs by sex?

No.

“Significant in males” + “not significant in females” isn’t, by itself, a significant sex difference.

Instead, we need to test whether the association itself differs by sex. For example:

Memory ~ Hippocampal volume × Sex + covariates.

The Hippocampal volume × Sex interaction tests whether the relationship between hippocampal volume and memory differs between males & females.

Surprisingly, this statistical misunderstanding is surprisingly common in the literature.

A new PNAS (2026) study examined 200 papers whose titles claimed sex/gender-dependent effects in the behavioural and brain sciences.

Only 24% actually provided appropriate statistical evidence for the claim that was tested.

58% never statistically compared the effects between sexes (the interaction effect).

Unfortunately for me, in the neurosciences, only 18% of claims were appropriately supported statistically.

Overall, an effect being significant in one sex but not the other is NOT evidence of a sex difference.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2608703123

https://xcancel.com/profjmb/status/2087173795031245302

Non-heterosexuals tend to have worse mental health compared to heterosexuals. Is this due to minority stress–stigma and discrimination? In a new study, we should that the answer is “mostly not.” Link to the article in the next post, followed by an explanatory thread. (1/n)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/how-much-is-sexual-minority-stress-confounded-with-familial-causes-a-systematic-multilevel-metaanalysis/A681A8ACF60DAEC2CFE9F652184F4CF4 (2/n)

The idea that non-heterosexual people have increased depression, anxiety, and suicidality because of mistreatment is plausible, and the theory–Sexual Minority Stress Theory (SMST)–has been the dominant explanation for 30 years. (3/n)

For example, a 2003 study by Meyer, the foremost SMST proponent, has been cited 20,000 times! NIH has funded SMST research, which has used it to explain even worse mental health among transgender youth. (4/n)

Virtually all empirical studies on SMST have been correlational. This is understandable, since one cannot do an RCT, and causally informative studies are difficult to conceive. (5/n)

Two facts raise concerns against SMST. First, despite the fact that Western tolerance of sexual minorities has grown considerably, mental health disparities remain as large as ever. (6/n)

Second, there are potential confounds that need to be excluded. From childhood, gay men are more neurotic, which can explain some of the disparity. There is a genetic correlation between non-heterosexual orientation and depression/anxiety in both males and females. (7/n)

In our new study, we use simple and compelling logic to estimate the degree to which minority stress accounts for the mental health disparities. The answer, again, is “not much.” The study is causally informative, providing “strong inference.” (8/n)

Here’s the logic: By SMST, non-heterosexuals should have worse mental health compared with their heterosexual family members, even MZ (identical) twins. Those heterosexual family members have not experienced any sexual minority stress. (9/n)

In fact, the discrepancy between non heterosexuals and their heterosexual family members should be as large as between the former and non relatives. (9.5/n)

This figure clearly shows the results. The bar for “Population” shows the effect size difference between non-heterosexuals and heterosexual non-relatives. The other two bars show the difference for family members. See how they rapidly drop off. (10/n)

(10/n)

This means that most of the mental health disparity between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals is due to aspects shared in the same family. Probably especially genes. (11/n)

What are the implications of our study? First, researchers should stop conducting studies of minority stress that do not consider competing hypotheses. NIH should stop funding such studies. (12/n)

Second, this isn’t about blaming anyone, nor about encouraging bad behavior towards non-heterosexuals. We need to look elsewhere, other than minority stress, if we want to improve their mental health. (13/n)

We hope our method will be applied to study gender dysphoria and transgender. There are databases that have the requisite information. Chances are, they are highly restricted for political reasons. Lift these restrictions! (14/n)

Here are links to two articles I wrote on this topic:

rdcu.be/fzgcn

rdcu.be/fzgem (n/n)

Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggression or else survey men who consent to being identified. Using anonymous surveys of 2,689 U.S. and Canadian men (18–34 years), we aimed to assess rates of self-reported sexual aggression, reports of strategy effectiveness at forcing known reluctant women into sex, and men’s views of the circumstances, motivations, and positive and negative outcomes. Men reported occasions where they tried to get a woman to engage in sex that they knew she did not want and to which she had not consented. The women were individuals with whom the men shared no prior romantic or sexual history. Overall, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to get a woman to have sex who they knew did not want sex and had not consented. Most of these occasions (65%) resulted in successfully forcing the woman into sex. All of the 36 strategies generated from formative work were reported by at least some men; the average number ever used was 8.94. Consistent physical pressure and verbal coercion were common; overt force, including physical restraint and use of pain, was less common but not uncommon. Men who viewed themselves as better than same-aged male peers “at getting what they want sexually from women” used more forceful strategies. The men persisted for many reasons, most often because they were horny (38%) or because the opportunity arose (28%). They reported many positive outcomes from these interactions; most (70%) perceived no negative outcomes. Using anonymous survey methods provides a novel channel to capture men’s reports of the factors scaffolding their use of sexual aggression. Implications for prevention and making long overdue inroads into reducing rates are discussed.

https://xcancel.com/segm_ebm/status/2086998491876991070

🚨 WPATH has conceded in court that its "Standards of Care" is merely an opinion. WPATH says it represents one side of an unsettled scientific debate marked by uncertainty — and physicains & orgs that rely on WPATH as the standard of care must bear "independent responsibility."/1

WPATH now agrees that pediatric transgender medicine is marked by "medical and scientific uncertainty." It represents its SOC-8 recommendations merely as an expression of WPATH's "free speech." Yet for years, WPATH presented its guidelines as an unquestionable medical standard of care. The social and scientific costs of questioning their recommendations were steep and could be career-ending. /2

WPATH now says there are two sides to the scientific debate over care for gender-dysphoric youth. On one, the gender-affirming model WPATH promotes. On the other, the Cass Review and Cass-aligned policies such as restrictions or bans on puberty blockers and hormones for minors./3

To defend itself against the FTC in the federal court, WPATH leans 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 on two Supreme Court rulings that under normal circumstances it decries. One is Skrmetti, which allowed states to ban transgender interventions for minors. The other is the pro-"conversion therapy" Chiles v. Salazar ruling. /4

Leaning on the pro-state-bans Skrmetti ruling, WPATH argues that the states have the right to regulate transgender interventions. While some states exercised their right to ban them—other states likewise have the right to promote transgender interventions for minors, using WPATH as the state-endorsed standard of care. /5

In what appears to be a desperate move, WPATH favorably quotes the SCOTUS ruling that cleared the path for administering talk therapy aimed at changing homosexual orientation and gender identity (Chiles v. Salazar). WPATH previously strongly objected to both as forms of conversion therapy.

Now, WPATH argues that although conversion therapy may be "substandard care," the Court rightly protected it as free speech. They argue that, likewise, WPATH's own SOC-8 guidelines should also be protected as "free speech"—even if the care they advocate for is judged as "substandard." /6

SEGM is not a policy-making group. Rather, we communicate with the clinical community, and often have to explain why we do not consider the WPATH Standards of Care to be evidence-based.

Our reading of the latest WPATH filing: WPATH's message is that its "Standards of Care" are merely an opinion and an expression of free speech. Clinicians who rely on the SOC-8 document—and organizations that refer to it as the implied standard of care for gender-dysphoric youth—are, in fact, taking on independent responsibility for the premise that the document represents trustworthy clinical guidance.

In turn, patients who trust the clinicians following the WPATH Standards of Care should know they are in a "buyer beware" situation. They are being treated based on what WPATH asserts to be merely an expression of "free speech"—representing only one side of an unsettled scientific debate marked by "medical and scientific uncertainty." /7

This most recent WPATH court filing is here and deserves to be read in full:

https://segm.org/sites/default/files/2026-08/WPATH%20Motion%20to%20dismiss_Aug%202026.pdf

Note: AI was used in the production of the screenshots for this thread, in order to stitch text across page breaks & suppress hanging sentence fragments. The wording is verbatim and unaltered./8

https://xcancel.com/Glinner/status/2083850250746540352

The IDF is the only force in this world preventing terrorists from fulfilling their Nazi dream of genociding the last surviving Jewish community in the Middle East.

That is exactly why antisemites hate the IDF with such obsession. That’s why they devote endless effort to vilifying it, delegitimizing it, and spreading vile blood libels about it.

Because they seek to remove the only barrier standing between them and their Judenfrei aspirations by any means necessary. Because they know one thing with absolute certainty: as long as the IDF exists, “Never Again” is not a slogan. It’s reality.

And for that, we owe the Israel Defense Forces our deepest gratitude. To the heroes who have sacrificed everything to protect millions of Jews and Israelis, time and time again, thank you.

Thank you for carrying an impossible burden and confronting extraordinary challenges at just 18 years old, while never allowing them to steal your youth, your humanity, or your joy. Despite everything you endure, you continue to laugh, to care, to look after one another, and to remain astonishingly resilient.

Thank you, IDF, for ensuring that the Jewish people will never again stand defenseless.

Thank you, IDF — for existing.✊🏽🇮🇱

100%. God bless the IDF for putting themselves between savagery and civilisation

After careful consideration and reviewing the current eligibility guidelines, I’m officially declaring myself a @WNBA prospect.

If simply declaring who you are is all that’s required, then I meet every single requirement necessary to compete in the WNBA.

My team and I have carefully examined the WNBA’s eligibility criteria and governing framework surrounding self-identification and inclusion. Based on the current guidelines, I can and am officially declaring my eligibility for the upcoming WNBA draft in April 2027.

I know my presence on the court will stir up strong opinions.

I am definitely not here to mock, make fun of, or disrespect any community or personal choices.

I’m simply asking that the current rules be applied equally to everyone — the rules that represent the very values many WNBA players and coaches have publicly advocated for. My team and I are prepared to ensure these guidelines are applied equally, consistently, and without exception, and I look forward to the #WNBA honoring its stated principles.

See you at training camp.

enesfreedom.com

Blanchard proposed that autogynephilia is a natal male’s paraphilic sexual arousal in response to the thought or fantasy of being a woman. Furthermore, based on evidence collected from natal males with gender dysphoria, Blanchard argued that autogynephilia is the fundamental motivation among nonhomosexual males (i.e., those not exclusively attracted to men) who pursue sex reassignment surgery or live as transgender women. These ideas have been challenged by several writers who have asserted, or offered evidence, that autogynephilia is common among women. However, their evidence was weakened by problematic measures and limited comparison groups. We compared four samples of autogynephilic natal males (N = 1549), four samples of non-autogynephilic natal males (N = 1339), and two samples of natal females (N = 500), using Blanchard’s original measure: the Core Autogynephilia Scale. The autogynephilic samples had much higher mean scores compared with non-autogynephilic natal males and natal females, who were similar. Our findings refute the contention that autogynephilia is common among natal females

Followup to previous essay

https://lemmy.today/post/57887811

Direct link to apology:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/latest/an-apology-a-growing-threat-briefing-published-on-8-july-2026/

Response from Rowling:

https://xcancel.com/jk_rowling/status/2083280764934746228#m

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867424001223

The history of sex research demonstrates an ongoing coexistence of multiple, conflicting meanings of sex. This history raises questions for scientists about the deployment of a research variable that lacks precision. Cross-disciplinary collaboration between scientists and science and technology studies (STS) scholars offers a way to find solutions to this problem.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/6/1582

A short critique of the paper:

https://xcancel.com/FondOfBeetles/status/2077389417291845705

I’ve requested the subject-level Brain Sex Index data behind Kurth et al., 2022. Brain sex in transgender women is shifted towards gender identity. JCM.

While I wait, some open questions on the published methods and conclusions.

(Using the paper language)

The key comparison (transgender women vs. cisgender men) was “one-tailed”(seeking a statistical difference in only one direction, which provides a more generous boundary to reach significance).

There is no stated correction for multiple pairwise comparisons across multiple groups.

Two-tailed, their own reported p=0.016 becomes 0.032. Why one-tailed, and why no correction across the 3 group comparisons?

The cisgender men’s group has one data point flagged as a statistical outlier (marked “+” on the plot, and apparently excluded from the box’s standard stats display).

But the reported comparison test shows 24 cisgender men were included.

If one cisgender man is such a clear outlier, does the headline finding hold with that point removed?

Effect sizes (d): briefly, how large a difference are we looking at?

Transgender women vs. cisgender men, d=0.64 (moderate).
Transgender women vs. cisgender women, d=1.87 (large).

That’s a big asymmetry: is that gap large enough to justify the authors’ conclusion of “hovering between”.

And since this calculation includes the outlying man, would removing it make “hovering between” a nonsensical conclusion?

As an analogy: the cisgender men are at the 100m finish line, the transgender women are about a 25m behind them, and the cisgender women are still at the start.

The authors report their transgender women cohort (n=24) as 6 androphilic (attracted to men) and 18 gynephilic (attracted to women).

Orientation has been linked to brain differences in other studies.

Why wasn’t orientation controlled for or stratified, especially since the authors recommend this for future studies? 😂

You have the data, my friends.

What does their dataset look like when disaggregated for orientation?

Anyway, I’ve made a formal request; I know other researchers have too. I’ll share what I get.

(And again, I’m repeating the language of the paper for ease of cross reference to it)

Frankly, to make the claim that sexuality might impact analysis in TIMs, look at the TIM plot that clearly shows two groups - as opposed to the smooth bubble of other males and the female cohort - and fail to disaggregate is bonkers.

There is a reason this is a different shape.

https://xcancel.com/SwipeWright/status/2081789091046182975

My scholarly article "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes" has been accessed over 50K times, placing it in the top 8 of all articles in the journal's history.

Activists refuse to cite it or acknowledge it exists.

I'm still waiting for someone to publish a scholarly scientific takedown of it. You'd think this would be a top priority for those asserting "sex is a spectrum" who believe my work is bigoted, pseudoscientific, and actively harming a vulnerable community.

Until then, you can read it and arm yourself with a thorough understanding of the 5 major frameworks that activists and activist scientists use to undermine the binary nature of the sexes and why they all fail.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3

One reply to his paper, Response to Wright’s (2025) “Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes”, is probably why he had to qualify takedown with "scholarly" and "scientific". Nicely put, it's neither. He published a response to that, Response to Mahr’s (2026) Response to Wright’s (2025) “Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes”