There are tons of groups with significant motivation to publish just about anything detrimental to transgender people, so yes, it would've been published.

Well, there does seem to be no shortage of trans girls at any rate

Transgender people, total, between both transmasc and transfem individuals, make up around 0.5% of the population of the US. Hardly abundant. And again, the number of trans people in high level sports is in the double digit numbers.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/transgender-population-by-state

I didn't expect or understand the extreme American reaction, let alone any worldwide reaction, to what seemed to me like just another terrorist attack, largely predictable and differing only in scale from what had happened before.

Scale is important

If you're implying that this is what's happening with trans women in female sports, then this isn't accurate. There is no evidence showing that trans women outperform cisgender women by any significant margin. Based on https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/ trans women get well within the expected ranges for cis women within around 3-4 years. Any remaining difference is far, far below the difference between a 150 and 250 pound boxer. (And, given how few trans women there are, if those few are in the upper 50% percentile (Which is far from universal for all trans people) what actual difference does it make? Also consider how many people take this as an excuse to harass and harm trans people outside of sports, and how the NCAA has a total of what, less than ten? trans women, total)

The model seems very, very benchmaxxed. Third party testing on unconventional or private benchmarks ends up placing even the largest gpt-oss below o4-mini, below the largest Qwen releases, and often it ends up below even the newer 30B~ Qwens in a few situations. It isn't super capable to begin with, and the frankly absurd rate at which this model hallucinates kills what little use it might have with tool use. I think this model poses next to zero risk because it just isn't very capable. 

That's pretty much it! If everyone in the world was set to die four minutes after I died, and this was just an immutable fact of the universe, then that would be super unfortunate, but oh well, I can't do anything about it, so I shouldn't really care that much. In the situation in which I more directly cause/choose, not only have I cut my and everyone else's lives short to just a year, I also am directly responsible, and could have chosen to just not do that!

Interestingly, the LLMs were not biased in the original evaluation setting, but became biased (up to 12% differences in interview rates) when we added realistic details like company names (Meta, Palantir, General Motors), locations, or culture descriptions from public careers pages. 

This is probably because, from a simulators prospective, the model expects a resume screening AI from these companies to be biased. In the generic setting, the model has no precedent so the HHH persona's general neutrality is 'more active'.

Is qualia (it's existence or not, how and why it happens) not the exact thing the hard problem is about? If you're ignoring the hard problem or dismiss it you also doubt the existence of qualia.