I did examine it. From the outset it looks like self-reported nonsense, hence the comparison to VAERS. Examining further, yes, it's self-reported nonsense, and also it's broken so I can't even really look into it in detail. The one example that is highlighted with sourcing is about a transwoman golfer who won ONE event. One. Looking through her win/loss record, she seems broadly pretty good, but hardly what one would expect if the narrative being pushed here is true.

> You're complaining that it's using publicly available data? Would you rather private anecdotes?

It's literally private anecdotes! Anyone can submit to that thing, the form is one click away from the homepage.

> Not sure why this is relevant - is being cheated out of second place less of a misdeed than being cheated out of first?

Of course not, but again, the narrative is that men are posing as women and competing in an unfair way based on genetic advantage. That's not a "win here and there" situation the way it's framed, that's a "women have no way to fairly compete." So why are so many transwomen still being beated by ciswomen competitors?

> It's not 0, and anyone engaging honestly knows it.

Then let's see a source! I asked for one two comments ago. Even the one on that shithoused website I can actually check the sources FOR is at best, speculative. What exactly in the male genome predisposes one in the context of GOLF for earth shattering victory?

> To make another vaccine analogy: claiming it's a small number and therefore it doesn't matter

I didn't claim it's a small number, I've claimed it's made up.

> is identical to the people who said Covid vaccines weren't important because the disease didn't wipe out more than x% of the population.

> And it's because of resistance to men in women's sports that the problem is not larger.

There are no men in women's sports, there are women in women's sports, and until you show me the source you're, respectfully, talking nonsense.