Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Renata Roma, Research Associate – Pawsitive Connections Lab, University of Saskatchewan

For some pet guardians, their pets are present in their lives from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed.

This happens because cats, dogs and other companion animals are increasingly perceived as family members. I’m not talking about the distant cousin, for example, but the ones who really take part in our everyday lives.

In some cases, this includes quieter, more intimate moments, like bedtime. Sleeping with your cat or dog can feel comforting, even essential.

In fact, according to a survey conducted by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, almost half — 46 per cent — of respondents sleep in the same bed with a pet. As a clinical researcher that focuses on the interactions between pet owners and their animals, I work with many people who describe a close relationship with their pets and share a variety of moments with them.

The benefits of this bond is supported by science. Research shows daily interactions with pets can enhance well-being.

But research also suggests any potential benefits to sleeping next to a beloved pet aren’t straightforward: it can feel comforting even as it may quietly disrupt sleep quality.

The emotional logic of co-sleeping with pets

The impact of co-sleeping can be measured through self-reports and questionnaires, as well as with objective tools, like wristwatches that measure what’s happening physiologically during the night.

In studies using subjective measures, many pet guardians report sleeping better when their pets are with them. Other benefits linked with co-sleeping include an increase in feelings of comfort and emotional safety.

In this context, sleeping places us in a state of perceived vulnerability. Sleeping with a pet, particularly one with whom we have a close bond, may reduce this sense of vulnerability while enhancing a sense of safety.

Emotional regulation is another possible mechanism in this context, as feeling safer can lower emotional arousal. In other words, the presence of a pet may simply help pet guardians feel safe and comfortable. Waking up with a pet next to them can bring a sense of happiness, which may lead them to feel they slept well.

At the same time, some studies using standard questionnaires to assess insomnia and sleep quality suggest that co-sleeping with a pet is not linked to lower stress and may increase insomnia and reduce perceived sleep quality.

These mixed findings suggest that the effects of co-sleeping are more complex than they may seem — that how we feel about our sleep doesn’t always match what’s happening in our body.

Co-sleeping from a physiological perspective

we can also investigate the impacts of co-sleeping with pets more objectively, using tools to assess sleep patterns, awakenings during the night and overall sleep quality.

Research suggests that even when pet guardians report better sleep, physiological measures often show more fragmented sleep when they share the bed with their pets. In one study, researchers used a wristwatch-like device to measure people’s movement during the night while they slept with their pets.

They found that even when people felt they slept well, their sleep tended to be more disrupted.

In some cases, these disruptions were related to the pet’s movements during the night. Researchers observed a synchrony in which pet’s movements influenced their guardians’ movement patterns, and vice versa.

Co-sleeping with a pet, therefore, may affect both the person’s sleep and the pet’s sleep. And though these disruptions aren’t uniform, they may depend on the type of animal you share your bed.

Why does disrupt sleep more than cats

There is also evidence that the impact may vary depending on the type and number of pets. People who sleep with dogs may experience more disruption, while those sleeping with cats often report mixed results.

Although the reasons for these differences are unclear, they may be linked to dogs’ greater sensitivity to external stimuli, such as car noise, barking in the neighbourhood and other environmental sounds.

Considering how these experiences can shape mental health and well-being, it is important to note that poor sleep quality over time can impact emotional regulation.

This may appear as lower tolerance for frustration or a reduced ability to manage emotionally challenging situations. Fatigue, depressed mood, difficulty focusing and a range of other symptoms may also be linked to poor sleep.

Taken together, these findings challenge the idea that co-sleeping is simply either good or bad.

Rethinking the “good or bad” debate

Sleeping with a pet seems to be both comforting and disruptive at the same time.

It is a complex behaviour, and understanding people’s motivations behind whether they share their bed is important. In some cases, for example, co-sleeping with a pet can be very meaningful, aligned with people’s needs and potentially linked to comfort and well-being.

At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that our perceptions do not always fully reflect what is happening in the body.

From a practical perspective, a more nuanced understanding of co-sleeping can shed light on how it shapes daily experiences, sleep and overall health. Closer attention to how pets are integrated into our lives can help guardians make decisions that consider both physical and mental health, without neglecting the potential impacts of those decisions on the pet.

Rather than asking whether co-sleeping with your pet is beneficial or harmful, a better questions is what are you prioritizing: emotional comfort or uninterupted sleep? Recognizing the trade-off can help pet guardians make an informed choice.

Renata Roma does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Do you love sleeping with your pet? Science reveals there’s a tricky trade-off – https://theconversation.com/do-you-love-sleeping-with-your-pet-science-reveals-theres-a-tricky-trade-off-277464

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jacquie Gahagan, Full Professor and Associate Vice-President, Research, Mount Saint Vincent University

Youth in Canada’s child welfare system need stronger government leadership to improve educational outcomes. Fewer than half of youth who have spent time in foster care — known as care-experienced youth — complete high school and even fewer attend or complete post-secondary education.

These educational gaps can have lasting consequences for the life chances of care-experienced youth, including higher rates of unemployment, poverty, homelessness, criminalization and other longstanding disparities.

Education falls under the provincial and territorial jurisdiction. However, the absence of strong federal oversight — including the lack of a co-ordinated national data collection and reporting process — contributes to the current patchwork of data that exists.

As a result, we lack a clear understanding of which publicly funded policies and interventions are effective in meeting the unique needs of care-experienced youth.

The Senate’s Standing Committee on Human Rights recently released the report Nothing to Celebrate: The Crisis of Youth Aging Out of Care. This report is a much-needed national call to action. It sets out eight concrete recommendations to address the health, social, economic and educational disparities faced by care-experienced youth.

Yet a key question remains: In a child welfare system marked by jurisdictional divisions, will care-experienced youth see the needed action to improve their life chances, including equitable access to educational opportunities?

National children and youth commissioner?

One of the Senate report’s central recommendations is the establishment of a national children and youth commissioner.

This is not a new idea. It’s been proposed for decades. Yet Canada remains one of the few high-income countries without a national oversight body focused on the well-being of children and youth.

A national children and youth commissioner would have a mandate to monitor and report to Parliament on children’s rights and the rights of people who are becoming adults.

Such a mandate could help create a clearer picture of the realities facing young people with care experience, including their educational disparities from coast to coast.

A national commissioner could also play an important role in reporting data from across the country on children and youth during care and as they transition into adulthood.

A national child welfare data-reporting requirement could inform more equitable and responsive policy and program decision-making, regardless of where a child or youth spent time in care. As highlighted in the Senate report, the province or territory where a child or youth was in care should not determine whether they receive supports or how long those supports last.

---

Read more:
Forgotten futures? Canada urgently needs a national discussion about young people’s futures

---

Another key recommendation in the Senate report is aimed at addressing jurisdictional disparities by calling for a national summit and action plan involving federal, provincial and territorial governments, guided by the Equitable Standards for Transitions to Adulthood for Youth in Care.

Grounded in lived expertise, these standards promote more equitable and gradual transitions to adulthood based on readiness rather than age alone. This approach offers an alternative to the abrupt termination of supports at the arbitrary age set by provincial or territorial legislation.

Indigenous children and youth in care

A national children and youth commissioner would also help navigate the complex jurisdictional policy landscape affecting Indigenous children and youth in care. The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation underscores that the over-representation of Indigenous children and youth in the mainstream child welfare system is an ongoing legacy of residential schools and the Sixties Scoop.

These colonial policies have enabled the separation of Indigenous children from their families and communities. Although Indigenous Services Canada introduced services in 2022 to assist youth aging out of care and young adults formerly in care, there is no external federal oversight to ensure the program is sustainable and is achieving its intended goals.

A national commissioner could also help ensure that Indigenous youth with care experience receive equitable support both on- and off-reserve through governments upholding Jordan’s Principle.

Mobility rights for youth

Federal co-ordination of supports and services is also essential to upholding the mobility rights set out in Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The transition to adulthood should include unrestricted mobility across the country.

Yet for care-experienced youth, a fragmented child welfare system and uneven post-secondary supports can limit where they are able to attend college or university.

Currently, programs and services designed to support youth transitioning to adulthood are difficult to navigate across provinces and territories. Staff in one part of the country often do not have complete or up-to-date information about programs and supports available in other jurisdictions.

Holistic, integrated supports needed

Recent findings from our work in Atlantic Canada show that improving educational outcomes for care-experienced youth requires more than national oversight and formal policy alignment.

For example, tuition waiver programs can create access to post-secondary education, but that access is often undermined by barriers and costs beyond tuition, including intersecting forms of trauma, a lack of housing, food insecurity, transportation issues, the cost of books and school supplies and child care.

While many youth without care experience may have family members to serve as a financial and emotional support system, this is not the case for many care-experienced youth as they head into post-secondary studies.

Our research funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council also shows that care-experienced youth are more likely to persist when financial support is paired with holistic, trauma-informed wraparound services.

These include consistent mentorship, navigation support, counselling, tutoring and culturally responsive community connections. Importantly, success should not be defined only by graduation. It should also be understood through belonging, persistence and student-defined progress.

Simply surviving being in care isn’t OK

A stronger national approach, including the appointment of a national children and youth commissioner, could help Canada move beyond fragmented provincial and territorial eligibility rules and the inadequate data systems for tracking outcomes for children and youth in the child welfare system.

It could support a more co-ordinated model in which access to post-secondary education is paired with the structural and relational supports that care-experienced youth need to succeed and thrive. Simply surviving and aging out of the child welfare system should not be an acceptable outcome measure.

If we truly value the lives of those with care experience, governments across the country must show stronger leadership and make the long-overdue structural changes needed to repair a broken child welfare system.

Jacquie Gahagan receives funding from CIHR, SSHRC, RNS.

Dale Kirby receives funding from SSHRC.

Mary Rita Holland is affiliated with the Nova Scotia New Democratic Party.

Melanie M. Doucet is also the Executive Director of the National Council of Youth in Care Advocates (NCYICA), which receives funding from the McConnell Foundation and the Catherine Donnelly Foundation.

– ref. The crisis of youth aging out of care is why Canada needs a children and youth commissioner – https://theconversation.com/the-crisis-of-youth-aging-out-of-care-is-why-canada-needs-a-children-and-youth-commissioner-277362

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

Intelligence agencies are often blamed when the use of military force has an unexpected or negative outcome. Pundits often argue leaders end up in difficult situations because they are not fully informed, or intelligence agencies got it wrong.

Of course, analysis is sometimes wrong. Intelligence failures do happen and can lead to bad decisions and disastrous outcomes. When intelligence agencies fail, as they did before 9/11, the price is steep. But, more often than not, intelligence analysis is very good.

Perceived failures are far more likely when political leaders manipulate, ignore or even revise intelligence findings for their own purposes.

The Donald Trump administration appears to be playing politics with intelligence regarding the ongoing United States-Israel war in Iran. Tulsi Gabbard, the current director of national intelligence, told U.S. congress last week that the judgment of whether Iran posed an imminent threat belonged to the president.

This statement exposes how intelligence was politicized and various agencies ignored in the lead-up to the conflict.

Intelligence agencies

Modern intelligence agencies resulted from difficult experiences; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for example, was only established in 1947, six years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. had sufficient information to foresee the attack, but the institutions of the time and the interpretations of political leaders failed to put a complete picture together.

Dramatized spycraft makes for great entertainment. But the more important work of intelligence agencies is painstakingly collecting and assessing bits and pieces of information of various kinds.

Experiences like Pearl Harbor resulted in practices that guard against individual interpretation, force analysts to consider alternatives and subject assumptions to the critical eye of experts. It’s a massive undertaking: between 100,000 and 120,000 people now work in the U.S. intelligence community.

The importance of autonomy

Intelligence agencies, by the nature of what they examine, often have incomplete data. They must work carefully to avoid bias.

These biases range from internal biases, such as the concept of mirror imaging, to external ones, such as political interference. Recent history is replete with examples of political interference in intelligence assessment to their own country’s detriment.

Most European analysts did not believe Russia would invade Ukraine in the lead-up to the full-scale Russian assault in 2022. The reason for their incredulity was that given Russia’s stated strategic goals, a direct invasion would compromise the country.

Vladimir Putin, however, had isolated himself from objective analysis and continues to do so. Instead, the structure of the Russian state encouraged people who agreed with him rather than those who provided analysis based on expertise.

The result is a war entering its fifth year, with a heavy toll on the Russian people and Putin’s dream of a stronger Russia floundering.

But the U.S. doesn’t need to look abroad for similar examples. The greatest American strategic folly of the 21st century, the invasion of Iraq, was abetted by the George W. Bush administration’s misrepresentation of CIA assessments that did not further the goal of invading Iraq.

In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, Bush and his inner circle reportedly “cherry-picked” intelligence assessments to justify their case for war, leading them to fall victim to a form of bias known as groupthink.

The Iraq invasion has had long-lasting consequences — it still compromises America’s geostrategic position in the Middle East and globally. The invasion, in fact, helped bolster the regional strength of the current U.S. adversary, Iran.

Failure to learn from the past

It seems the Trump administration has learned no lessons from the Iraq debacle.

In her congressional testimony, Gabbard avoided the topic of whether intelligence agencies agreed that Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Given that Gabbard was under oath, her evasion suggests the White House interpreted information differently or dismissed intelligence reports.

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Centre, recently resigned in protest over the decision to attack Iran.

Kent, regardless of his own problematic past, noted in his resignation letter that Trump chose to ignore intelligence briefings that Iran did not pose an imminent threat and instead relied on an inner circle of supporters to justify his decision to wage war.

Fallout

The problems emerging from Trump’s attack on Iran are both grave and predictable. Not only has the U.S. failed to bring about regime change — ostensibly one of the reasons to attack — but the government now in charge in Iran is even more radical than the one it’s replaced.

---

Read more:
U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran may succeed on a military basis, but at what cost?

---

Furthermore, the world is now facing an energy crisis, which, according to the head of the International Energy Agency, is worse than the oil spikes of the 1970s. This directly stems from Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

While Trump is trying to frame his decision to attack Iran as a victory, it is likely to be anything but — not only America’s strategic position in the Middle East, but for the intelligence community and global security.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. U.S. actions in Iran are politically motivated, not the result of intelligence failures – https://theconversation.com/u-s-actions-in-iran-are-politically-motivated-not-the-result-of-intelligence-failures-278971

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Maryam Ghahremani, Research Data Scientist at Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary

For many older adults, life is full of routines. Making breakfast, paying bills, shopping, driving, managing appointments and keeping track of medications are tasks done almost automatically. For most, these routines run smoothly, but for some, small disruptions begin to creep in.

These small struggles matter. Perhaps it starts with uncharacteristically forgetting to add an item to the grocery list or misplacing a pair of glasses. Maybe a chequebook gets mismanaged, or a favourite recipe becomes harder to follow.

These moments can be brushed off as part of aging or blamed on a busy mind. Yet, when these new difficulties persist over time, they may be more than just minor frustrations; they might be early signs of something far deeper.

Understanding functional changes

Daily functioning is a key measure of independence, reflecting not only memory, but the co-ordination, planning and attention required to navigate everyday life. Changes here are often subtle, and they can go unnoticed by family members or health-care providers.

Clinicians have long recognized that loss of functional independence, like difficulty performing everyday activities, is a hallmark of dementia. It is, in fact, part of the formal diagnostic criteria for dementia.

What is less widely appreciated is that these functional changes can emerge years before dementia is diagnosed, providing an early signal that the brain may be at risk. Even when memory seems intact, persistent new struggles in daily tasks may indicate that cognitive decline is starting quietly.

Persistent versus temporary struggles

Recent studies tracking older adults without dementia have found that those who experience persistent difficulties in activities of daily living (like preparing meals, shopping or driving) face a higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease in the years ahead. In addition, these persistent impairments are linked to biological markers of the disease, detectable in spinal fluid long before memory loss becomes obvious. By contrast, temporary or occasional difficulties do not carry the same risk.

One of the key insights in this new research is the difference between temporary lapses and persistent functional changes. While almost everyone misplaces keys or forgets a name from time to time, chronic struggles that linger or worsen over months and years may reveal early disruptions in the brain’s ability to co-ordinate complex tasks.

---

This article is part of our series The Grey Revolution. The Conversation Canada/La Conversation invites readers to examine the far-reaching impacts of the aging baby boomer generation on Canadian society — from housing and employment to culture, food, travel and health care. The series explores the transformations already underway, as well as those still to come.

---

These disruptions can be one of the earliest indicators that cognitive decline is on the horizon, even before conventional cognitive tests can detect it.

Families, especially those who live with or spend time daily with an older adult, are often the first to notice subtle but steady changes in function, like moments when their loved one struggles to follow a familiar schedule, double-checks every step in a process that used to be second nature or avoids tasks that were once routine. Recognizing these patterns early can help families seek timely evaluation, support and planning.

Looking beyond cognitive screening tests

These findings also underscore the value of integrating functional assessments into routine health care. Traditionally, cognitive screening has focused on memory, attention or language tests. More recently, including assessments of changes in behaviour or neuropsychiatric symptoms have been included in dementia guidelines, even at screening of cognitively unimpaired older persons.

Measuring the ability to manage daily life may provide a window into brain health that is both a practical and potentially more culturally adaptable approach to early detection than cognitive screening. Standard cognitive screening tests can be affected by language, education or cultural background. For example, someone may score lower simply because the test uses unfamiliar words, assumes certain schooling or reflects cultural norms that differ from their own.

In contrast, observing changes in everyday function over time focuses on real-life abilities and can reveal early signs of brain changes, offering a practical and widely applicable way to detect risk.

Shifting the focus in aging and brain health

The story of everyday struggles as early warning signs challenges common perceptions of aging. What looks like normal forgetfulness may, in some cases, be a signal to pay closer attention. These subtle changes are not personal failures — they are clues, pointing to the need for care, support and awareness.

It’s also important to keep this in balance: not every struggle points to dementia, and many older adults maintain their independence without experiencing any decline in daily functioning. But for those whose difficulties persist and accumulate, the pattern is meaningful.

Based on the latest research, it is this persistence, rather than occasional slips, that is most strongly linked to future cognitive decline and brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

By shifting the focus from episodic forgetfulness to ongoing functional changes, families and health-care providers can act sooner. Support strategies, such as simplifying routines, using reminders or providing assistance with complex tasks, can help maintain independence while also serving as a form of early intervention. Early recognition also allows for better planning, access to resources and timely medical evaluation.

A window into brain health

Ultimately, the story of functional change in aging is one of vigilance and insight. Paying attention to what may seem like small, everyday difficulties can offer a glimpse into the brain’s health years before memory loss becomes obvious. It’s a reminder that the subtle ways life becomes harder can carry vital information, and that early attention to persistent changes may make a meaningful difference in the course of aging and cognitive health.

If you’re interested in contributing to research on everyday function and brain health, Canadian studies like CAN-PROTECT and BAMBI are exploring how subtle changes in daily life may signal early risk for Alzheimer’s.

Both studies are led by Dr. Zahinoor Ismail, a clinician scientist at the University of Calgary and one of the authors of this story. BAMBI is based in Calgary, while CAN-PROTECT is an online study open to participants across Canada. By joining such studies, you can help advance research that could make a real difference.

Zahinoor Ismail receives funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Gordie Howe CARES, and the NIHR UK Exeter Biomedical Research Centre. He has also served as a consultant to Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka/Lundbeck, and Roche.

Maryam Ghahremani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. When everyday tasks become harder: Early clues to Alzheimer’s disease – https://theconversation.com/when-everyday-tasks-become-harder-early-clues-to-alzheimers-disease-277443

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Philip Mai, Co-director and Senior Researcher, Social Media Lab, Toronto Metropolitan University

The Canadian government has reached an agreement with the social media platform TikTok after years of debate over the app’s data practices, particularly those affecting young users. The deal allows TikTok to continue operating in Canada under tighter oversight rather than facing a shutdown.

As social media researchers at the Social Media Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University, we’ve always paid close attention to the state of social media in Canada. We have followed the TikTok ban saga closely since early 2020, when United States President Donald Trump first tried to ban the platform, long before he later came out in favour of keeping it.

While the new agreement does move towards greater oversight of TikTok, major concerns remain. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is based in China and Chinese national security laws can compel companies to co-operate with state authorities. This underlying risk sits beyond the reach of Canada’s safeguards.

The agreement follows a new national security review that reversed an earlier conclusion pointing toward closure of TikTok’s Canadian operations. Instead of a ban, the federal government has chosen a regulatory approach, one that keeps the app available while imposing legally binding conditions. The deal reduces some risks, but it does not resolve deeper questions about ownership, data flows and national security.

So what has TikTok agreed to? And what will the millions of Canadian users, creators, advertisers and cultural groups that rely on the platform notice?

Stronger protections for youth and minors

Under the new rules, TikTok must strengthen its protection of Canadian user data. This includes creating a security “gateway” to control access to that data, adopting privacy-enhancing technologies and allowing independent third-party monitoring to verify how data is handled.

TikTok also committed to stronger protections for minors and youth, a key concern driving the government’s review.

---

Read more:
Why Ontario school boards are suing social media platforms for causing an attention crisis

---

For everyday users, the focus on youth protection is likely to be the most visible change. Stricter age limits could affect livestreaming. Gift features may be more restricted for younger users. Content involving minors is likely to face stricter moderation.

Canadian creators will also feel the impact. Those with audiences largely made up of teenagers may face tighter moderation or additional eligibility checks for certain features and monetization tools. Sponsors may also ask more detailed questions about audience demographics as brands become more cautious about youth-focused content.

Many changes will happen behind the scenes. As TikTok Canada adjusts to the new requirements, its verification processes, advertising tools and moderation systems are expected to become more demanding.

As the government now requires stronger protection of Canadian user data, people who earn money on the platform may encounter extra steps. These may include stricter identity checks, added requirements for business accounts or ad payments and clearer information about where Canadian user data is stored.

---

Read more:
Does TikTok pose a security threat to Canadians?

---

Does this make TikTok safer? Compared to what existed before, the agreement does move toward greater oversight. Independent monitoring, if carried out properly, gives the government some visibility into TikTok’s data practices and the commitments are legally binding rather than voluntary.

Canadian data can still leave Canada

Enforcement details are still unclear. The government has said it will appoint an independent monitor, but has not named the monitor, explained how audits will work or detailed what penalties TikTok would face for failing to comply. Without clear consequences, oversight could prove weaker in practice than it appears on paper.

The agreement also stops short of requiring full data localization. Canadian user data does not have to stay entirely within the country. Although technical controls may limit access, data can still move through systems outside Canada. This leaves some exposure to unauthorized access or foreign influence.

Another gap is research access. The deal does not require TikTok to share data with vetted Canadian public-interest researchers, like academics or journalists. Currently, researchers from Canada are not qualified for access to the TikTok application programming interface (API), while their counterparts in the European Union and U.S. are. This makes it harder for Canadian researchers to independently study the platform’s impact on Canadian users.

A cautious compromise

Overall, the agreement reflects a compromise. Canada avoided a disruptive ban; TikTok accepted tighter rules to keep operating in a key market. The deal reduces some risks, but it does not resolve deeper questions about ownership, data flows and national security.

Those tensions are likely to resurface as Canada continues to grapple with how to regulate global platforms that play an outsized role in everyday life.

Anatoliy Gruzd receives funding from the Canada Research Chair program (SSHRC).

Philip Mai does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Canada’s new TikTok compromise fails to resolve questions of ownership and national security – https://theconversation.com/canadas-new-tiktok-compromise-fails-to-resolve-questions-of-ownership-and-national-security-278182

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Steve Granger, Assistant Professor, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University

You’re scheduled for surgery next week. You’ve likely looked up your surgeon’s credentials, years of experience and perhaps even patient reviews. You want reassurance that your surgeon has steady hands, deep expertise and a thorough command of the procedure. Technical skills feels like the thing that matters most.

But there’s another question most patients never think to ask: How well does your surgeon lead a team?

It might sound like an odd thing to consider, but in the operating room, surgery is rarely a solo act. Surgeons work alongside anesthesiologists, nurses and medical residents who must co-ordinate closely, often under intense pressure, to deliver care.

When something unexpected happens and the team needs to pivot quickly, how a surgeon leads matters in ways most patients rarely see or even think about.

In a study conducted by our research team, including Shani Pupco, Amy Akers and Darren Beiko, we examined leadership behaviours across 150 surgeries at a teaching hospital in Ontario.

Despite decades of evidence showing the benefits of inspiring, people-focused leadership, those qualities alone were not enough in complex, high-stakes operations where conditions can change rapidly.

Two different leadership styles

Leadership researchers have long distinguished between two main approaches to leading teams: transformational and directive leadership.

Transformational leadership is people-focused, meaning it emphasizes inspiration, building trust, encouraging open communication and helping people feel valued and motivated.

Directive leadership is task-focused. It involves giving clear instructions, co-ordinating actions, enforcing procedures and ensuring everyone knows their role in real time.

Although sometimes associated with control or micromanagement when used to excess, in high-risk settings it can provide essential clarity and co-ordination.

Transformational leadership has been widely studied and positively linked with better team performance, stronger morale and improved outcomes across many workplace settings. As a result, it is often examined on its own as a driver of effective leadership.

But our research suggests the picture is more complicated in environments where the stakes are high.

Complexity changes everything

Not all surgeries are alike.

Some procedures are relatively routine and predictable. An appendectomy, for example, typically follows established protocols with predictable demands and roles. In these situations, everyone on the team knows what to do and when to do it.

But surgeries don’t always go according to plan.

A routine surgery can suddenly become complicated if a patient becomes unstable, while more complex procedures may involve unexpected challenges from the start.

In these moments, the usual script may no longer be enough to guide the team. This is when leadership becomes far more important.

Situational leadership

To make sense of this, we drew on a concept from psychology called situational strength — how much a situation provides information about appropriate or desirable behaviour.

Routine surgeries are considered “strong situations.” Protocols, prior training, roles and expectations are so clear that the situation itself largely guides behaviour with little-to-no leadership required.

More complex or unpredictable surgeries can create “weak situations.” Protocols may not fully cover what’s unfolding. Roles become ambiguous and prior training no longer suffices. The team needs real-time guidance on what to prioritize, who should act and how to co-ordinate under pressure.

In these moments, leadership becomes critical precisely because the situation no longer provides all the answers.

Our research found that during these high-complexity moments, the benefits of transformational leadership only emerged when it was combined with directive leadership.

When surgeons paired people-focused leadership with task-focused leadership, their teams reported feeling significantly safer about speaking up, raising concerns and flagging problems as they arose, otherwise known as psychological safety.

More reported errors can signal better care

One of the more counter-intuitive findings involved surgical errors. Teams that reported higher psychological safety actually had more observed errors during surgery, not fewer.

At first glance, that sounds like worse performance. In reality, it may signal the opposite.

When team members feel psychologically safe, they are more willing to voice concerns, flag near-misses and speak up when something looks wrong. These are precisely the behaviours that prevent minor deviations from becoming serious complications.

And our data support this interpretation: teams with higher psychological safety had fewer severe complications after patients were discharged. More errors caught earlier and corrected in the operating room meant better outcomes beyond it.

What this means for training — and beyond

Recognition of leadership as a core surgical competency is growing. A recent systematic review of surgical leadership curricula spanning nearly four decades shows that training programs have evolved considerably.

But a closer look reveals that many programs focus on developing a single leadership style or approach rather than helping surgeons learn how to flexibly combine different leadership behaviours as situations change.

Our findings suggest this flexibility matters.

This has implications well beyond the operating room. Financial trading floors, emergency response teams, military units and any environment where conditions shift rapidly and errors carry serious consequences all share the same basic challenge for leaders.

The leaders who perform best in these environments don’t master one leadership style. Rather, they learn to combine and adapt approaches when it matters most.

Steve Granger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Julian Barling receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Borden Chair of Leader at the Smith School of Business.

Michaela Scanlon receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. When it comes to surgery, your doctor’s leadership skills play a crucial role – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-surgery-your-doctors-leadership-skills-play-a-crucial-role-278059

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jaigris Hodson, Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, Royal Roads University

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, head of Canada’s official opposition, recently became the first Canadian political leader to appear on the controversial Joe Rogan Experience podcast.

Poilievre had been asked to sit for an interview with Rogan amid the federal election campaign in April 2025, but was reportedly advised by his team to pass since Rogan was, and remains, a polarizing and contentious figure. Nonetheless, Rogan’s podcast is one of the world’s longest running, averaging 11 million listeners per episode and ranked No. 1 globally on Spotify in 2025.

Poilievre apparently changed his mind, presenting Rogan with the gift of a kettlebell inscribed with a maple leaf during the interview. The Conservative leader told the media he went on the podcast because he wanted to appeal to the United States to lift tariffs on Canadian goods.

Whether his efforts worked remains to be seen, but could there be unintended consequences to Poilievre’s appearance on the podcast? Did he spread any harmful disinformation about Canada and North America to a massive audience that, while possibly popular among his base, could be detrimental to Canadians in general?

Rogan and the manosphere

We conduct research on the manosphere, online spaces including videos and podcasts characterized by hyper-masculine ideals and documented tendencies to spread conspiracy, hate and misinformation.

Our findings show that manosphere influencers spread toxic content about marginalized populations, including dangerous misinformation about health, politics, immigration and the environment. The Joe Rogan Experience is part of this ecosystem.

From this vantage point, we analyzed Poilievre’s comments to Rogan to see if any of the podcaster’s well-known conspiratorial or misinformation-laden ideas made it into the conversation, and how Poilievre responded.

While recent coverage of the podcast episode in news media has focused on tariffs, Canada-U.S. relations and a shared love of fitness, we found misinformation on immigration, the health and environmental consequences of Alberta’s oilsands, seed oils, safer drug supply measures and the causes of inflation.

1. Immigration

Poilievre, citing no evidence, told Rogan that Canada admits one million immigrants per year.

But information from the Canadian government website shows that targets for temporary residents — students and work visa holders — make up 385,000 people for 2026, while permanent resident targets are at 380,000 people. Combined, that’s significantly fewer than the number cited by Poilievre.

Inflating immigration numbers is a known rhetorical tactic in far-right online spaces, where it functions to fuel anxieties about demographic change. Repeating it on a platform with millions of listeners legitimizes a distortion that creates division and harms racialized communities.

2. Oilsands

Poilievre told Rogan that Alberta’s oilsands have very few health or environmental consequences, stating that it has “no impact to groundwater … no impact to the environment” and that people who live near the oilsands are “very healthy.”

But a 2024 report on the Athabasca oilsands released by scientists at the University of British Columbia suggest significant environmental and health impacts from the oilsands, meaning that, at best, Poilievre oversold the safety of oil development. His characterizations don’t reflect scientific research and they sideline those most affected.

---

Read more:
How plants can help clean up oilsands tailing ponds

---

3. Seed oils

One of Rogan’s favourite topics is health and diet, so it wasn’t surprising to hear him discuss seed oils with Poilievre. They talked about how beef tallow or butter is better for people’s health than foods made from seed oils.

This claim, popular among wellness influencers, has been debunked by the Harvard School of Public Health in multiple scientific articles.

Canada is also the largest exporter of canola oil in the world, so when Poilievre failed to push back against Rogan’s health misinformation, he tacitly supported an idea that harms the very trade he was purportedly aiming to bolster with his appearance on the podcast.

4. Safer drug supply initiatives

Poilievre told Rogan that people are acquiring opioids through Canada’s safer supply drug program and then selling the drugs to children, alleging “the addicts would sell those to kids so that they could buy the harder stuff off the street, and it expanded it even more.” This is a claim that the Conservative Party of Canada and Poilievre, along with conservative media, have been touting for years.

The claim was fact-checked by the Walrus magazine in 2024, which found no credible evidence that safe supply drugs were ending up in the hands of children. Repeating it on a global platform reinforces a punitive narrative about drug use that has demonstrably failed to reduce harm and echoes a moral panic used to justify aggressive U.S. tariff threats against Canada.

---

Read more:
New study: Some crimes increased, others decreased around Toronto supervised consumption sites

---

5. Inflation

Poilievre told Rogan that inflation during and following the COVID-19 pandemic was a direct result of the previous Liberal government’s actions. He said:

“Like back during COVID when all these governments were printing money and all the politicians and bankers said ‘Oh, this is great. Well, look at all this money we get to spend.’ I’d walk around communities and I’d have like mechanics say, you know, we’re going to have inflation. And I would say, yeah, it makes sense to me… And sure enough, all that money filtered into the economy, bid up all the goods we buy, and everybody got smoked with higher prices.”

Poilievre has made this claim for a while. It was fact-checked and found to be misleading by the Calgary Journal in 2025.

Misinformation or politics as usual?

Does it matter if Poilievre is spreading misinformation about Canada on Rogan’s podcast? We believe it does.

Poilievre aspires to become prime minister and should aim to lead the country in ways that benefit all Canadians, including canola farmers, immigrants, people who use drugs and the communities that are currently polluted by oil development.

His talking points on immigration and drug trafficking, among others, are known dog whistles that speak to far-right online audiences.

Making these claims is dangerous. Anti-immigrant misinformation, for example, creates divisiveness and distrust among Canadians, to the detriment of targeted racialized populations.

Making false accusations about drug-related crime or unmitigated drug trafficking reinforces the case for greater governmental oversight of citizens. It also justifies, to some extent, the false narratives cited by the U.S. in its retaliatory actions against Canada, including tariffs.

---

Read more:
Trump’s lurking assault on Canada rests on endless lies and irrational populism

---

Appealing to his base?

Poilievre has often been criticized for his association with far-right politicians. These associations have eroded his popularity among most Canadian voters who don’t like the tactics and divisiveness of the current U.S. administration under Donald Trump.

Despite previously showing little appetite for political theatrics like gifting Rogan a maple-leaf-embossed kettlebell, Poilievre now appears intent on pushing claims that resonate with his base, even as others scrutinize and fact-check them as misleading.

By promoting politically expedient misinformation on a show like Joe Rogan’s, Poilievre risks eroding Canadians’ shared understanding of public health, environmental challenges and social cohesion — all issues he should be working to address.

At a time when democratic communication is strained by misinformation and deepening polarization, Canadians should expect better from their political leaders, regardless of party.

Jaigris Hodson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Brianna I. Wiens receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Nick Ruest receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Shana MacDonald receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Fact check: Pierre Poilievre’s misinformation on Joe Rogan’s podcast disrespects Canadians – https://theconversation.com/fact-check-pierre-poilievres-misinformation-on-joe-rogans-podcast-disrespects-canadians-278864

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Camisha Sibblis, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminology/Director of the Black Studies Institute, University of Windsor

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once declared: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” However, if the systems created to administer and protect justice are the very sources of injustice, what happens to us as a society?

Like Gladue reports (specialized documents used in Canadian courts for Indigenous offenders outlining intergenerational trauma), enhanced pre-sentence reports (EPSRs) — sometimes called impact of race and culture assessments — have been used by criminal courts to address anti-Black racism. They explain how systemic factors shaped the path and limited the choices of offenders.

This is done to encourage fair sentencing and reduce the over-representation of Black people in prison.

As an academic and clinician who authors EPSRs, I have wondered whether they actually help Canadian criminal courts achieve justice for Black youth as intended, or if the courts still act unjustly while using them.

---

Read more:
Do pre-sentencing reports really help Black offenders in Canada’s justice system?

---

The recent judgments on two youth who both appealed their adult sentences after being convicted of murder highlights how EPSR use can miss its mark. Although both crimes were severe, sentencing differed for multiple factors, showing that EPSRs may not correct racial bias when the judicial perception of Black youth is distorted.

Parallel crimes, different outcomes

In July 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada made decisions in the cases of R. v. S.B. and R. v. I.M. Both S.B., who had an EPSR, and I.M., who didn’t, violently killed unsuspecting victims in Toronto in 2010 and 2011 respectively, Yet it was determined that S.B. would receive an adult sentence and I.M. a youth sentence.

S.B., a 16-year-old Black male of Jamaican and Trinidadian descent, along with several other youths, lured a 16-year-old into an apartment building stairwell, where S.B. shot him, killing him instantly.

By contrast, I.M., a South Asian male seven months from his 18th birthday, went to the home of his 17-year-old victim with a group, forced him into an alley and stabbed him more than 11 times. After leaving the victim for dead, the group entered his home to rob it, struck his mother twice in the head with a handgun and forced her to sit with her head between her knees while they searched her home for guns.

Bias and the misuse of the EPSRs

In S.B.’s case, the court framed his actions through a lens of adult culpability, overlooking the mitigating factors of his youth and traumatic experiences as outlined in his EPSR. Despite being only 16, the judge determined that S.B.’s conduct showed an “adult-like ability to plan, as opposed to youthful impulsivity [and] propensity for risk-taking.”

This characterization rested on his actions outside of the murder: orchestrating the luring of the victim, directing a co-accused to delete messages and blame rivals for the murder and discussing the possibility of eliminating witnesses.

The court argued that these actions demonstrated “confidence in managing events post-offence rather than youthful panic,” framing his behaviour as inherently criminal. Furthermore, this assessment saw S.B. as having the “ability to exercise adult judgment and foresight.”

These comments suggest misunderstandings of panic, adolescence and brain development. They also underestimate the abilities, knowledge and intelligence of the average youth.

I.M.’s judgment, in stark contrast, highlighted “youthful bravado,” framing his actions as the product of immaturity rather than criminal sophistication. Despite his intention to “prove to others he was ready to progress into more serious criminal activity,” the court downplayed any planning or co-ordination involved in the crime. I.M.’s proximity to aging out of the youth system was overlooked.

While he boasted about the crime with a peer and flaunted a blood-stained shirt, these actions were dismissed as “ill-considered and imprudent,” supporting the perspective of him as a youth needing support. They were said to show “bravado consonant with the impulsivity of an adolescent” rather than learned hyper-masculine behaviour often performed by adults.

I.M.’s “difficult life circumstances” were understood as giving way to “heightened vulnerability” to negative influences like peer pressure, which decreased his moral blameworthiness.

A troubling, structural catch-22

The upholding of S.B.’s adult sentence — a mandatory life term — while granting I.M. a 10-year youth sentence reveals a racialized lens that distorts judgments of age and morality where Black men are concerned.

Despite the EPSR noting that S.B. showed remorse, he appears to have been regarded as irredeemable in the Supreme Court’s sentencing. On the other hand, despite I.M. being deemed by a psychiatrist to have “little remorse” and “a negative rehabilitative prognosis,” he received a lighter sentence.

It’s clear that S.B.’s EPSR failed to counteract the harmful racial stereotypes that equate Black bodies with risk and facilitate a just sentence.

The courts overlooked that poverty can make kids seem to grow up faster because it exposes them early to adult stressors and requires them to develop savvy for survival.

Gaps and similar paths to violence

S.B.’s parents divorced when he was 10, after which his mother was his sole caregiver. At 11, he witnessed his cousin’s murder at a mutual friend’s funeral, which left him “severely traumatized.”

He grew up poor “in a drug- and gang-ridden community,” where he was “groomed” by older gang affiliates. He experienced the loss of several acquaintances and was subjected to beatings and carding by police. Diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability, S.B. was labelled as displaying “immature behaviour” by one teacher.

I.M., who immigrated to Canada from Bangladesh as an infant, was reportedly raised in a stable, two-parent household and experienced a single yet profound, traumatic event at age 16 — a school shooting. Like S.B., he was diagnosed with a learning disability, but his school records noted his potential as a student. His mother emphasized his attentiveness and willingness to listen.

Both youth began engaging in criminalized activity such as robberies and drug trafficking at around age 12, and both had long lists of misconduct reports, including assaults and trafficking, while in custody for the murders.

EPSRs are clinical assessments used to contextualize complex biological, psychological and social factors. If judges who lack expertise in child development disregard these analyses, what beliefs are they employing to determine developmental age versus chronological age?

This case comparison uncovers a troubling catch-22: Black individuals’ perceived dangerousness heightens with both their perceived intelligence and lack thereof.

Intelligence makes them “criminal masterminds,” and the lack of it makes them “uncontrollable savages.” Both interpretations negate rehabilitation and justify long-term incarceration.

Camisha Sibblis receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Do enhanced pre-sentence reports protect Black youth or expose bias? – https://theconversation.com/do-enhanced-pre-sentence-reports-protect-black-youth-or-expose-bias-263255

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Vincent Artman, Senior Researcher, Geography and Regional Development, University of Ostrava

The United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine recently delivered a significant finding: Russia’s systematic removal and Russification of Ukrainian children constitutes both a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Russia takes Ukrainian children from occupied territories, places them in Russian families, gives them Russian names, and, by presidential decree, grants them fast-tracked Russian citizenship.

More than 1,200 cases were verified by the commission, but the real number is likely much higher. Eighty per cent of the children remain in Russia, in many cases adopted into Russian families.

This disturbing finding, however, undermines one of the most enduring and pernicious Russian myths about the war itself.

The ‘NATO expansion’ myth

One of the most durable narratives about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, relentlessly promoted by figures like American international relations scholar John Mearsheimer, is that the war was simply a reluctant, defensive Russian reaction to “NATO expansionism.” The West, according to this narrative, provoked Russia, leaving Vladimir Putin with no choice but to respond.

---

Read more:
The Ukraine-Russia standoff is a troubling watershed moment for NATO

---

Ukraine, however, was not part of NATO in 2014 or 2022, and never even had a Membership Action Plan, an essential first step toward accession to NATO.

Western leaders explicitly accommodated Putin’s demands and kept Ukraine out of the alliance indefinitely. Despite various verbal assurances, NATO never actually offered Ukraine a pathway to membership, and Ukraine officially became a neutral, non-bloc state in 2010. That did not prevent Russia from invading in 2014.

“NATO expansion” was also not the reason cited in 2022 for launching Putin’s so-called “special military operation.” Instead, the Russian leader claimed the full-scale invasion was an effort to stop a genocide being perpetrated by the “neo-Nazi Kyiv regime” against Moscow’s puppet “people’s republics” in Luhansk and Donetsk. These claims are baseless.

---

Read more:
Vladimir Putin points to history to justify his Ukraine invasion, regardless of reality

---

In the same speech, Putin also reiterated the claim that Russians and Ukrainians comprise a “single whole, despite the existence of state borders,” echoing arguments made in his 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”

This belief forms part of what some scholars have argued is an ideology according to which Russia, as a distinct “civilization-state,” has a “civilizational mission” to “reunify” the Russian nation (including Ukrainians) and take back control of what are regarded as “historically Russian territories.”

According to Putin, that means the “true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.”

Little of this would seem to have much to do with legitimate security concerns.

The war Russia is truly fighting

The limits of the NATO expansion narrative become clearest when we look at how Russia is actually waging the war. If the Russian aim was truly to address security concerns, the country’s conduct would reflect that objective.

Instead, Russia razes entire cities and repopulates them with Russian citizens. It changes Ukrainian place names to Russian ones. It demolishes Ukrainian Orthodox churches and is “liquidating” the Roman Catholic Church in occupied territories.

It engages in passportization — a policy of forcing Russian citizenship on occupied populations by making basic survival contingent on accepting a Russian passport. It systematically targets schools, hospitals, energy infrastructure and cultural heritage, causing $176 billion in direct damage by the end of 2024, including destroying 13 per cent of Ukrainian housing.

As for the stolen children, the UN commission has found no functional mechanism for their return from Russia. Most will never go home.

Other children, still living in occupied territories, face the “eradication of their cultural identity,” including ideological indoctrination and militarization.

None of these actions make sense if understood through the lens of preventing NATO expansion, but they do once Russia’s eliminationist ideology, which actually fuels the conflict, is recognized and understood.

Why this matters for peace

In occupied territories, systematic Russification, linguistic discrimination, ideological education and coerced citizenship have been enforced through repression, torture, sexual violence and extrajudicial killings.

In front-line areas, the destruction of local governance, social infrastructure and demographic fabric are ongoing catastrophes. An estimated 3.55 million Ukrainians remain internally displaced; another 6.8 million have sought refuge abroad.

Achieving a just peace in Ukraine will therefore not be merely a matter of rebuilding damaged infrastructure. It will require a process of cultural and social restoration, one that will not succeed if policymakers remain attached to shallow and misleading explanations for why the destruction occurred in the first place.

If the war was truly about NATO, a land-for-peace deal with neutrality guarantees might theoretically suffice. But if the war is about erasing a people, their language, their culture and their future, then border adjustments will resolve little. A state whose leadership denies the existence of a separate Ukrainian identity will not be satisfied with mere territorial concessions.

Stolen generations

The NATO expansion myth cannot explain the war that Russia is actually fighting, nor can it explain the abduction and forced assimilation of Ukrainian children.

Ultimately, it’s a fable that shifts blame from the aggressor to the victims, undermining the prospects for a just and lasting peace.

Ukraine’s stolen generations are not “collateral damage” — they represent the war’s actual objectives. In the end, understanding those objectives will be essential to achieving peace and to rebuilding a country Russia appears intent on leaving without a future generation.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ukraine’s stolen children expose the lies at the heart of Russia’s four-year military assault – https://theconversation.com/ukraines-stolen-children-expose-the-lies-at-the-heart-of-russias-four-year-military-assault-278576

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kurt Michael Downes, PhD Candidate, Kinesiology, University of Windsor

In 1992, an article in Nature asked, “Will women soon outrun men?” The question was sparked by a series of remarkable performances by women, including Florence Griffith-Joyner’s 100-metre world record in 1988.

At the time, women’s performances were improving faster than men’s, prompting speculation that the gap might eventually close in endurance events, and then possibly the sprints.

More than three decades later, the answer is clearer. Prior to puberty, boys and girls perform similarly, but the hormonal surge at adolescence sets in motion a lasting gap in speed, strength and endurance. Women have continued to narrow the gap, but a sizeable difference still remains. Even when talent, training and effort are equal, biology still sets upper limits of performance.

But does this really matter? Women’s sport does not need to be compared to men’s sport in order for it to be considered elite or credible. It can stand on its own. Maybe the real question is not how close the gap is between men and women but instead whether we are providing women with the training and resources to maximize their potential.

Puberty changes everything

Prior to puberty, boys and girls are similar from a performance perspective. Girls often keep pace or outperform boys, with similar race times, jump height and endurance capacities. Once puberty enters the equation, the balance shifts.

In boys, testosterone surges well above that of females at any age, driving gains in muscle, bone, heart size, lung capacity and hemoglobin — an iron-rich protein in blood cells that transports oxygen from the lungs to body tissues, including working muscles, which plays a major role in sports and is especially important in endurance events.

These traits boost speed, power and endurance capabilities.

On the other hand, girls experience spikes in estrogen and progesterone during puberty. These hormones are essential for reproductive health and are associated with higher body fat and wider pelvic structure, which in turn could alter athletic performance.

By the late teens, and importantly after the start of puberty, the divide is obvious. Men outperform women by 10 to 30 per cent across the majority of athletic events not because of differences in dedication or effort, but because physiology has set different athletic ceilings.

Biology sets the boundaries

Expanded investment, higher salaries, greater participation opportunities, stronger advocacy, the growth of professional leagues and improved coaching and training have benefited some sports like women’s football (soccer) over the last few decades. Recent developments, such as the new WNBA collective bargaining agreement that includes salary expansion and revenue sharing reflect a shift in momentum towards an increasing value in women’s sport.

Nonetheless, once training conditions become comparable at the elite level, the performance gap does not disappear — it stabilizes. Despite similar coaching, facilities and sports science support, a consistent performance divide remains because after puberty, muscle size, lung capacity and hemoglobin set a baseline that training cannot erase.

None of this diminishes the extraordinary sporting achievements of female athletes.

Exceptions to the rule? Where women excel

There are events in which women outperform men, and these cases are telling. In ultra-events and cold-water swims, women have occasionally won outright, likely as a result of greater fat metabolism, better pacing and higher tolerance for prolonged discomfort. These traits matter less in explosive events but can be decisive in prolonged endurance or sustained output activities.

Also, performance includes aspects of sport — like skill, tactics, and strategy — that are difficult to compare. The elements are a reminder that the performance gap shifts with context, rather than being finite.

Alternative questions

Acknowledging these differences does not diminish women’s achievements. Instead, it protects the principle of fair competition that women’s sport was created to uphold. Fairness, however, is not the same as equity.

The majority of women’s sport still receives less funding, media coverage and scientific investment, there are gender-specific barriers to sport and physical activity participation, and there are major gaps in understanding how female-specific physiology such as menstrual cycles, contraceptives and pregnancy affect performance and recovery.

These are realities that coaching practice and sport policy are only beginning to tackle. And this leads to an alternative question: when will the coaching/administration gap close?

This question is put forward in the face of continued disparities in the number of female coaches and administrators across most sports, a fact noted at the most recent Winter Olympic games.

Similarly, when will the training gap close? Along with sex differences in physiology, coaches and athletes acknowledge differences in coach-athlete relationships, injury risk and other aspects of health, yet training often continues to draw on sport science literature and sport programming historically based on male participants.

Anecdotally, after presenting on these topics to a group of high-performance coaches, several described seeing these differences in practice and expressed frustration that the research base remains too limited to guide them in sex-specific, evidence-based training practices. Nonetheless, expanding this research, as well as increasing the representation of women in sport leadership and administration, would be a step forward in creating change.

Will female athletes ever compete with males in the most physically demanding sports? Maybe, maybe not. But is this the right question?

Women’s sport does not need to mirror men’s to matter. Its value stems from fair competition and athletic achievement. It has earned the right to visibility, respect and investment — both financially and through research — to best allow all of our aspiring athletes to maximize their full potential.

Kurt Michael Downes receives funding from the Coaching Association of Ontario (CAO). He is the President and Head Coach the Border City Athletics Club (not-for-profit) and is a member on the boards of Inclusion in Canadian Sports Network (not-for-profit), Family Fuse (not-for-profit) and Resilient Kids Canada (not-for-profit).

Kevin Milne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. We’re asking the wrong questions about women’s athletic performance – https://theconversation.com/were-asking-the-wrong-questions-about-womens-athletic-performance-270264