CF

Environmental Scientist, PhD.

All views my own and not of my associated institutions or employer.

[CF @SkullScience]

The environmental toxicity of trace metals, the mining process and consequent impact on many third world countries in our aim for EV and Net Zero should not be the sacrificial lamb of our own consumerism and the mass consumption therein. Research required

https://t.co/u9dFc8eZDy

[CF @SkullScience]

@EllieChowns You seem confused Dr Chowns. The guidance is simply there to aid service providers in how to implement their duties in regard to the Equality Act 2010. If you disagree with the guidance then you need to campaign for a new Act rather than remove guidance.
https://t.co/VyDs30FFlc

[CF @SkullScience]

@TheGreenParty The Code of Practice is guidance to aid service providers in how to implement their duties in regard to the Equality Act 2010. These duties are not removed by withdrawing this guidance but will leave service providers open to litigation if they do not adhere to the Equality Act.

[CF @SkullScience]

@normanmacpain @garylfrancione @MaeveHalligan It's an archaic oddity that Cambridge seems to cling on to. Other debating forums both within and outside of academia use a 'two-vote' system (a prior-after tally). A measure of whether a person 'wins' a debate is not possible with a partisan audience. Swing measurement is vital.

[CF @SkullScience]

@normanmacpain @garylfrancione @MaeveHalligan When you state "she won" you appear to have fallen for the basic error of the 'fallacy of neutrality'. This misconception that the audience are somehow a 'blank slate' is asinine. I imagine Maeve was aware of the partisan nature of the young student body making up the audience.

[CF @SkullScience]

@UoLWSS A student union should endeavour to encourage representation via participation. If there is the support and demand for your society then there appears to be little to no good reason to reject. I hope Leicester SU reconsider. Signed.

[CF @SkullScience]

@LGBwiththeT Ruuska et al implements a matched control cohort model for its methodological approach and uses Cox regression as multivariate analyses. This approach is robust when studying and comparing distinct cohort outcomes. Perhaps reading the study may help.

https://t.co/9kfOAIpfZL

[CF @SkullScience]

@salltweets I can't imagine that the authors of the study (Villotte et al) are particularly satisfied with @xanthaleatham conflating their research into historical traditional gender roles (and ceremonial practices) with gender identity and the modern notion of 'non-binary' self-perception.

[CF @SkullScience]

@SwipeWright Clarification on whether the author of this article, @xanthaleatham, was responsible for the headline would be helpful as she appears to misrepresent the study topic of historic gender roles and ceremonial practices therein and conflated them with the notion of gender identity.

[CF @SkullScience]

@HelenWebberley The studies you cite have long been heavily critiqued for their own shortcomings. Noone et al had only 15 pages with 19 co-authorships, a lead authorship of a person whose PhD is in "Mindfulness". The authorship is replete with those who financially gain from the current system.

[CF @SkullScience]

@kareem_carr I don't think you believe this. Perhaps you are playing Devil's Advocate or you require engagement? A simple test of your "take" on this would be to ask you what is measured on the x-axis of your bimodal distribution and where would you place yourself on this representation?

[CF @SkullScience]

@ukvillafan @obi_juanita @novaramedia There has been a failure of oversight in the conclusions and semantics therein in this study. The low quality studies implemented in the review should have led to an inconclusive outcome due to lack of high quality data. This should have been flagged at peer review if not prior.

[CF @SkullScience]

@obi_juanita @ukvillafan @novaramedia As someone who has peer reviewed a great many papers, I am somewhat concerned how amendments were not instructed for this study. Collation of a series of low quality studies with self-selection and self-reporting data should preclude definitive statement.

https://t.co/0PusVLTfaq

[Women's Rights Network - WRN @WomensRightsNet]

The once-great British Journal of Sports Medicine continues to scrape the very bottom of the junk science barrel in the quest to supports its narrative that males should be allowed to compete in female sports.

In the latest issue of the @BJSM_BMJ, a group of researchers from Brazil, have made great effort to twist data to suit their narrative. In a mastery of statistical jumbo-jumbo they reckon that there are 52 studies that support allowing men in women’s sports. We’re not buying it. The only thing this article proves is the old adage that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

❌ Of the 52 studies reviewed only three were randomised controlled trials (the gold standard of scientific research).

❌ Only 16 studies included an assessment of physical activity - fairly important in a study of athletic ability.

❌ Two of the studies (one by Dr Joanna Harper and one by Dr Blair Hamilton) have previously been comprehensively debunked. Harper and Hamilton are males who say they’re women so you could say they have skin in the game.

Harper’s notorious study asked nine male runners if they ran slower after taking oestrogen. Funnily enough all the men said oestrogen had slowed them down and this was the data used to justify the IOC including males in female sports. Hamilton’s study compared young fit female athletes with older, fat, men and lo and behold found the men were slower than the women…

❌ The review included studies of women taking testosterone (a performance enhancing drug) and found to no one’s surprise that they bulked up and sports performance improved.

We don’t know how this latest ‘science’ review got through the peer-review process but it should have been spiked the moment it landed on the editor’s desk.

It’s business as usual for WRN as we continue to campaign for fair, safe, sport for all females from grassroots to elite level.

[CF @SkullScience]

@Telegraph There needs to be introspection by the @BJSM_BMJ for publishing this. The authors have collated, by their own acknowledgement, a series of low-quality studies with self-selection/self-reporting data and proceeded to draw a conclusive outcome. All involved should be embarrassed.

[CF @SkullScience]

@sawyeurism @katempadilla Your opening gambit was an appeal to your academic credentials but then you appear to insinuate that those DSD conditions that were previously known as 'Intersex' is somehow a rebuttal to a claim that male and female are the only 2 sexes in humans. This is clearly inaccurate.

[CF @SkullScience]

@james_e_b_ @HelenWebberley Dr. Webberley's premise is a fallacy to begin with as a child's consent is not required for emergency treatment in examples such as chemotherapy or life saving diabetes treatment. This falls under 'Emergency Treatment' in the UK and 'Emergency Exception Rule' in the US.

[CF @SkullScience]

@HelenWebberley Consent from teenagers and children is not required in the examples you have provided (insulin and chemotherapy) in the UK. Both the parent's and the child's decision can be overruled by the Court of Protection under 'emergency treatment' as you well know.
https://t.co/cK7zcMxcN1

[CF @SkullScience]

@SwipeWright @JamesLNuzzo Yes, the same Journal (European Journal of Sports Science) also published evidence of pre-pubertal differences between the two sexes in track and field events applying data from the US. This study observed distinct male advantage prior to Tanner Stage 2.

https://t.co/mbZucv1gX2

[CF @SkullScience]

@JamesEsses I felt compelled to sign this petition due to the flawed methodology applied to the cohorts within the 'clinical' trial. The methodological flaws introduce a high risk of bias which will leave the outcomes open to significant critique and, as such, make the trial conclusions DOA.

[CF @SkullScience]

@wyllie_cameron @JillCollier16 @PankhurstEM @ForWomenScot @holyroodmandy @LWDScotland I am not sure what aspect of his education you were responsible for but Callum defined the female sex as "an individual who at birth has the phenotypical characteristics of a female". In many years in education I have never read such an inaccurate and reductive definition of sex.

[CF @SkullScience]

@StaceyVaughn @SofondaSocks @CrunchAlias @RebeccaRHelm There are details that need clarification. You are incorrect when you state that sex is bimodal. You are conflating sex with sex characteristics. Helm is using a semantic sleight of hand in this quote. She states that sex is "caused" (determined?) by chromosomes not "defined".