LogFAQs > #966827620

EDIT:
[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Missed this part. Feel free to ignore this post and we can discuss it some other time in some other topic. I appreciate the respectful attitude, though.

IGNORE EVERYTHING BELOW THIS, which while I find a fascinating bit of math, will only continue to derail the topic:

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Anecdotal evidence like "well if there's an advantage where are they all" isn't an actual argument because you're talking a TINY fraction of the population, taking the TINY FRACTION of that subset that is interested in professional sports, and then arguing that this entire pool of people, likely less than a tenth of a percent of the population, can't possibly have an advantage because they're not overrunning sports.

So let's look at some numbers because I like math:
Fewer than 2% of NCAA athletes make the pros.
There's about 480,000 NCAA athletes out of pool of college students of about 19 million, or about 2.5%

About 0.6% of of the population is trans. Let's assume the ratio of m2f and f2m is even, so about 0.3% of the population is mtf.

So 0.3 percent of 19 million is about 57k people, and 2.5% of that is about 1425, or roughly the number of NCAA trans athletes you could expect assuming everything is equal across the board. Of that pool of people, 28 in total should be able to break through the NCAA into the pros. 28 trans people, TOTAL, of the entire trans population, would be an accurate representation within professional sports.

If your argument is that there's no advantage because you're not seeing enough winners, you'd just have to look at the likelihood of being a champion in that pool of 1425 (or 28) versus the likelihood of being a champion in the 480k block to determine if, in aggregate, top level trans athletes are disproportionately represented relative to their population in sports.