FTR I accept you're coming from a position where you want _some_ people to be heard, and I commend that.

But from an accedemic perspective, _all reasoned arguments have a right to be heard.

Balance in all things.

Seems to be a lot of people who are angry about this. The attack line: this is a charter for purveyors of bigotry, racism...insert bad thing of your choice. I have one question: who gets to decide what is and is not bigotry etc? Is it just you & your mates or do we all get a say?

In practice the editor. So, be careful who you appoint and in particular don't appoint a post-box editor.

New university free speech complaints system to come into force this year Universities could face fines of £500,000 or 2% of their income if they are found to have failed to protect free speech.

According to @hepi-news.bsky.social polling: www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/u...) while 70% of students agree that 'universities should never limit free speech', 50% want at least one political party banned from campus. 🤷

I'd suggest there's something wrong with a vetting process whereby even if you fail, the people appointing you to a role can't be told.

No, Britain Is Not Having a Christian Revival A study said church attendance had soared among British young people, a trend reversal that excited religious conservatives around the world. Turns out it wasn’t true.

The Quiet Revival report was retracted after YouGov acknowledged problems with bogus survey respondents. In this NYT story, I comment on why the initial report got so much attention.
www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/world/europe/...

I wasn't referring to that paper. I was referring to the longitudinal studies referred to by Hilton & Lundberg.

Well, if you reckon the paper you cited instantiated "progress" I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

Most of the longitudinal studies they review have a pre-test post-test design. So the control is each respondent's own baseline. They are interested in the changes, which in all the studies are modest compared to baseline and compared to known male female differences in upper body strength/ power.

And while you are at it do the same for the US military study

Now explain carefully, in the way I patiently did with your paper, what the scientific flaws are in the study that render it markedly inferior to the study you prefer. Pay careful attention to confounding.

More ad hom.

"This particular part of the discussion" You seem to have a problem linking words to meaning.

I'll bid you adieu as I want to do something more enjoyable like watch The Importance of Being Earnest. You may find it profitable to read Hilton & Lundberg, 2021 Sports Medicine & Roberts et al 2021 BJSM.

Nope. The arguments came from reading the paper - in fact I had already read it when it came out - and using the advanced methodology of thinking

There are fools everywhere

No it is not. You are confused. Again.

warranted by the data they rely on.

Nope. This particular part of the discussion arose when YOU asserted that I should believe something because if recent research findings. I then asked you to provide citations. You provided precisely 1. I then explained patiently & at length, why the conclusions that study purports to draw are not

YOU were the one making the claim. You now seem to be having memory problems.

There are flaws & there are flaws. Not even pretending to deal with obvious confounding, such as in the specific study I pointed to, when it biases the study in the direction of your preferred result seems a tad cavalier. But I'm happy to let the readers decide.

Ad hominem now. Very impressive. Calm down & think.

Well, let's let others decide who produced the most convincing arguments.

No. You have claimed that the evidence you produced does that & I have explained yo you, rather patiently, why it does not. I don't think I can be expected to do more than that.

Au contraire old chap. My logic is entirely consistent. I'm perfectly happy for the wider scientific community to make their own mind up on who has shifted ground, introduced irrelevance & is confused about a very basic matter of statistical inference.

I have stated my position concisely & clearly. I've nothing to add.

You are confusing a statistical decision making procedure with the state of the world. If you don't recognise the difference between these two things then the scope for mutually enlightening conversation is rather limited.

You seem to be very angry. Have a nice lie down & collect your thoughts.

Where have I said that? Quote please, not hand waving, or in this case, fantasy.

These questions are irrelevant. We are discussing whether the evidence YOU chose to point to can support a 'no advantage' claim. It can't.