The Instigator
cloebowie
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Transwomen Should Be Eligible to Play Sports in the Women's League

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2018 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,745 times Debate No: 119483
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (1)

 

cloebowie

Pro

In case the title wasn't self-explanatory enough, this is a debate on whether or not transwomen should be eligible to play sports in the women's league. I will argue that transwomen should be eligible, While my opponent shall argue against this. Here's my argument.

1) Transwomen are still women.

1. To differentiate transwomen from ciswomen is to reduce women to a body part, When in reality, Women are more than just one part of their body.

2. Being born without certain human parts doesn't make you less of a person, Just as being born without certain female parts doesn't make you less of a woman.

2) Women come in all shapes and sizes.

1. One shouldn't have to have an hourglass figure to be considered a female, Nor should one have to have a lack of physicality.

2. Though transwomen are built different from ciswomen, Even ciswomen are built different from one another; no woman is built the same from head to toe.

3) Transwomen were born males: not athletes.

1. While the male body tends to be stronger than the female body, It's not guaranteed to be, Meaning that a ciswoman is capable of being stronger than a transwoman.

2. Fitness and nutrition play a bigger role in someone's capabilities than gender does.

4) Gender isn't black and white.

1. Contrary to popular belief, There are a dozen feminine characteristic traits, As opposed to just one. While both genders have some of them, Neither gender has all of them, Meaning that female attributes of which a ciswoman might be deprived of, A transwoman could actually have.

2. Which female attributes anoint someone a female is a matter of opinion, Rather than a fact, And to base rules off of opinions is not only prejudice but is unnecessary, Because the facts are there, And the fact is that no feminine characteristic trait is more feminine than any other (femininity is femininity).

5) There are pros and cons to everything.

1. While many athletes strive to be bigger and heavier, Others aspire to be smaller and lighter (such as gymnasts, Figure skaters, And horse riders), Causing a transwoman's inherent nature to be just as much of a disadvantage in the women's league as it is an advantage.

2. Rather than being more or less equipped, Transwomen are just differently equipped, As all women are, From each other.

There's my argument.

A big thank you to my opponent for agreeing to accept this challenge.
Thoht

Con

Happy to think with you today,

I'll address your points first then move to my own.

1) We don't disagree. Trans-women are women.

2) We don't disagree. Women come in many shapes in sizes. However, We disagree a bit. More on this later.

3) Transwomen were born males, Not athletes.

1. The male body is not just stronger than the female body. It is superior in various ways. Larger quantities of blood means oxygen can circulate better, For one. The statistic we should be looking at is that Male athletes tend to outperform female athletes by a consistent 10% in most categories.

With that 10% in mind, Elite athletes tend to be the top. 1% of females or males respectively. However, Way more than the top. 1% of males can beat the top. 1% of females. There are a LOT more than. 1% of males that will be superior to those elite females in nearly every way.

Females can win against any male in many cases. However, This doesn't mean the playing field is even. This is the whole reason we have separated sports based on biological sex. Because females would nearly all be eliminated from competition if they were forced to compete with the more than. 1% of males that have this advantage over them.

That being said, Transgender people do not lose this biological advantage if their gender does not match their biological sex. This is why having them compete in female sports is not fair to the females. We are trying to include a small portion of the population and alienating a massive majority by doing this.

Just because the top. 1% of the female elite athletes have a chance against males doesn't mean we put them into male sports.

Just because there is a subset of females 3 standard deviations from the norm that can compete against some males doesn't mean we should allow people who are biologically male and share those advantages to compete against them. Even if this were true, We aren't just talking about elite athletes in this post. We're saying that ALL transwomen should be able to compete in female leagues. That means trans women will on average be 10% superior to females. Females will gradually, Particularly if trans persons increase as a percentage of the population, Take the place of all females in their leagues.

This is literally biological men competing against females. If you are for this, You have to be for the annihilation of female leagues, And us having only one league for all persons.

The types of transwomen who this actually effects will probably be more athletic than other transwomen on average. Females were born females, Not athletes as well. This is flawed logic.

2. Fitness and nutrition play a bigger role than someone's biological sex does. Gender is irrelevant to sports. Biological sex and genes make 100% of the difference between two athletes who train optimally. This includes fitness and nutrition.

4) We don't disagree. Gender is largely a social construct. This is not what is important to me in this debate. I am pro-trans. This debate is about biological superiority which transwomen, On average, Have over biological females.

5) "There are pros and cons to everything"

1. You could make arguments for the inclusion of transwomen in any league which biological sex does not lead to superiority. These are largely outliers however, And is not a concession of the debate on my part. In general men outperform men 10% in most cases.

2. Transwomen are differently equipped the same as biological men are differently equipped from biological females. Precisely the same. To argue that all transwomen should be allowed to compete in all female sports is to argue that all biological men are 'differently equipped' and should be able to compete in female sports. Not all transwomen can compete against all women, But neither can men!

Your argument, To prove your point, Has to be for the annihilation of sex-based sports.

---My arguments.

1. Summary of my argument against Cloe

Trans women are biologically male. They share the 10% superiority in most athletics that males enjoy. That they are women is something I do not question. They still have the 10% superiority biologically, And thus you cannot include them by default unless your position is that all biological males should be included in female sports as well.

2. Expanding

The matter is more complicated than your initial arguments. Few in the trans community that I've spoken with and seen agree that transwomen should be able to compete in female sports. I have found no statistics on this though, Which is unfortunate. A significantly larger portion of the trans community, From what I can tell, Believes transwomen should be able to compete IF they have had sex reassignment surgery and have been on hormones for some period of time.

The reasoning behind this is that while transwomen still have penises and testicles, The recommended healthy testosterone is the normal biological male range. When they have had these removed, They can take blockers to put it at the biological female range. Their estrogen levels can be taken to the normal female range prior to the surgery, But they will still have the same advantages as a biological male prior to this.

3. From where does the Biological Male advantage stem?

The problem with letting trans women compete who have had reassignment surgery and estrogen for a number of years is this still does not eliminate the totality of the advantages biological male have over biological females.

A study by Stephane Bermon and Pierre Yves Garnier shows a full 1/6th of world champ track and field biological male athletes were below or at the female range of testosterone, Yet still outperforming females.

Another study shows that even after prolonged hormone treatment, Transwomen maintain more bone density and muscle than biological females.

These studies go to show that hormone treatments alone do not close this large gap in performance. It's possible that over the course of decades of exposure to larger amounts of testosterone, These benefits don't simply vanish in a year or two of hormones equivalent to the opposite sex you were born as. Based on previously cited studies, It seems that more than testosterone goes into the 10% gap between bio males and females.

4. Different Views on Sports

There are two differing camps of people when it comes to one specific issue in sports. Do we allow performance enhancing drugs or not? Currently in most leagues we try to be 'fair. ' The definition of fair in this case is that everyone competes with what their body naturally does, And what performance gains they can get from dieting or exercise. Drugs are prohibited largely.

When it comes to 'fair' sports, Transwomen are allowed to control their levels of testosterone and estrogen. Biological females are not. This comes into play even more when transmen are concerned. They are literally using performing enhancing drugs.

I've looked for examples of transmen winning athletic events against biological men. I can't find any myself. Why do you think there is such a large disparity in transwomen victories and transmen victories?

To conclude,

The short of this is that biology is complicated. We don't know specifically what needs to change to give transwomen an equal playing field.

Transwomen regardless of hormone therapy or not share some of the inherent advantages that their biological male status has conferred to them. My opponent must make an argument that bio males and bio females should be competing against each other to say transwomen who don't go through therapy and reassignment should be able to compete against females. Post-reassignment and 2 years of therapy, They still have advantages. The same argument still applies.

Females should be able to compete against whomever they wish. I don't mind if they want to compete against men or transwomen. They should simply not be forced to. Out of a desire to include a few, You alienate the many.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
cloebowie

Pro

Apparently, In round one, Autocorrect mistook my commas for periods and capitalized the first letter of every word following them. I'm sorry to anyone who found this glitch distracting. If it happens again, Please forgive me, As it is beyond my control.

To my opponent, That was actually a well thought out argument. No one could argue with that, The fact that a lot of thought went into it. I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you. I'll give credit where credit is due and give you credit for not sounding as absurd as I would imagine someone on your side of the debate to. Know that your argument is not going in one ear and out the other; I'm listening. If you can prove me wrong, By all means, Please do. I want to take this matter in the right direction, Whether that's in my direction or not.

You did your research, Which I appreciate, And you provided me with information of which I didn't have prior, So shame on me and more power to you. While you've yet to convince me of your argument, You've further explained it, And I'll admit, I understand it a little better. Now that I know what your problem is, Allow me to assure you that it doesn't have to be a problem.

"The statistic we should be looking at is that Male athletes tend to outperform female athletes by a consistent 10% in most categories. "

1. While most of the time, One cisfemale athlete is as good as the next, Every now and then, Few will be 10% better than the rest, And transwomen would simply be among those few; if we're allowing their superiority, I don't see why we can't allow that of a transwoman's.

"That means trans women will on average be 10% superior to females. "

1. It shouldn't be a matter of whether transwomen are "superior" to ciswomen but whether transwomen are women themselves. If transwomen are women, Then they should be allowed to compete in the women's league by default. Even if transwomen are biologically 10% superior, Some cismen are genetically 10% superior to other cismen, But because they're still men, They're still eligible to compete in the men's league, Despite their genetic superiority, Just as transwomen should still be eligible to compete in the women's league, If they're still women, Which you admitted they are. It's women verses women, And if a transwoman is a woman, Then she's a women, Point blank; even if they win game after game, Athletes are allowed to have winning streaks. So long as the transwomen aren't performing at a level that ciswomen are medically advised not to keep up with, Their capabilities should only push ciswomen to work harder.

"Females can win against any male in many cases. However, This doesn't mean the playing field is even. "

1. The playing ground isn't even, Nor is it supposed to be. Advantages are what differentiate the winner from the runner-ups. If no one had any advantages, There'd be no competition; everyone would run at the same speed and finish the race at the same time.

"This is the whole reason we have separated sports based on biological sex. Because females would nearly all be eliminated from competition if they were forced to compete with the more than. 1% of males that have this advantage over them. "

1. We separate males from females because the average cisman is significantly stronger than the average ciswoman, But even if a ciswoman proved herself to be as strong as the average cisman in the men's league, We would have her remain in the women's league regardless, Simply because she's a woman, Just as we should place transwomen in the women's league, Simply because they're women, Also.

2. Transwomen would not outnumber ciswoman; there's not that many of them in general, Let alone pursuing the sports industry. This is why transwomen can't compete among themselves; the competition would be scarce. If transwomen are to populate and outnumber ciswomen over time, Then I agree that they could start their own league and compete among themselves, But until then, I see nothing wrong with sharing.

3. Just as biological sex contributes to one's performance, So does race. Because African-American men have been said to have higher bone mass density, They're thought to accumulate greater muscle mass. Since 77% of NBA players (according to ESPN) are African-American, It could be said that they're dominating the men's basketball league in the same way you fear transwomen will dominate the women's league, Meaning that, Unless you're racist and think we need to exclude African-American men, You're contradicting yourself in saying we need to exclude transwomen.

"The types of transwomen who this actually effects will probably be more athletic than other transwomen on average. "

1. While average transwomen are stronger than average ciswomen, They're not inherently stronger than athletic ciswomen, Meaning that if a transwomen is dominating the women's league, It's because of her athleticism, Rather than her biological disposition, Which wouldn't stand a chance against the physicality of a pro athlete, Even if a ciswoman.

"Biological sex and genes make 100% of the difference between two athletes who train optimally. "

1. If both (biological sex and genes) make 100% of a difference, Then disqualifying one and not the other is a contradiction of which can only be rationalized by either accepting both or accepting neither.

2. First, You say that no one should have biological/genetic advantages, And then you say, Because everyone is training optimally, That that's all anyone has to rely on, Which is another way of saying no one should have the only thing anyone has.

"Your argument, To prove your point, Has to be for the annihilation of sex-based sports. "

1. Your argument, To prove your point, Has to be for the annihilation of diversity in sports.

2. You can't allow certain types of women to complete in the women's league without being prejudice against those of whom you're excluding.

"Do we allow performance enhancing drugs or not? "

1. No, Because people would overdose trying to one-up each other.

"Drugs are prohibited largely. "

1. More so because athletes would overdose on them than because it'd give them an unfair advantage. Even pro wrestlers in the sports entertainment industry aren't allowed to take drugs, And drugs wouldn't change their performance because it's predetermined, But because they're dangerous, They're prohibited.

2. Water or any form of hydration improves an athlete's performance more than anything, But because everyone has access to fluid, We don't see it as being an advantage, But if drugs were safe, Everyone would have access to them, As well, And then we wouldn't see them as being an advantage, Either.

"Currently in most leagues we try to be 'fair. ' The definition of fair in this case is that everyone competes with what their body naturally does, "

1. If this makes sense to you, Then, By your logic, Having transwomen compete in the women's league is only fair, Because they're women (as you agreed) who are simply competing 'with what their body naturally does. '

"When it comes to 'fair' sports, Transwomen are allowed to control their levels of testosterone and estrogen. Biological females are not. "

1. They're only allowed to lessen their level of testosterone.

"This comes into play even more when transmen are concerned. They are literally using performing enhancing drugs. "

1. They're using prescribed drugs? This is like accusing an athlete with asthma of cheating for opening their airways and allowing oxygen to flow freely in and out of the lungs with the use of an inhaler. If they're deprived of oxygen, We have to provide them with some, Just as we have to provide testosterone to transmen because they're deprived of that.

"Why do you think there is such a large disparity in transwomen victories and transmen victories? "

1. I'm not arguing whether transwomen have an advantage but whether it's okay that they have an advantage, And according to your definition of "fair, " it should be.

There's my second argument.

Here's to round two.
Thoht

Con

Thanks, But this really isn't about proving someone wrong or right. Or convincing you one way or the other. There isn't really a right answer here. All I'm looking for is that you acknowledge the legitimacy of the viewpoint. It's terribly common for people to say if I'm against this I'm anti-trans somehow when nothing could be further from the truth. I want trans women to be able to compete and not have some large percentage of society put an asterisk next to their names when they win.

There are plenty of people that oppose this for the wrong reasons or who cannot articulate those reasons. I understand the desire those in the trans community have to compete, And compete with their own gender if possible. I sincerely hope one day we can do this in a way people consider fair. That line is terribly hard to draw for normal sex-based sports, Which is the legit complaint most have.

It's a bit hard to address your points specifically when you put '1' next to all of them. Probably in the future best to assign different numbers to each. I'll address them as I can.

1. The problem is 10% of biological males are superior to every single biological female. The argument you're using here would work for someone arguing female sports should not exist. That there should be only one league for all sexes. This is actually something that could work, But I'll address it in my solution section below. Again, The problem isn't that trans women could lose, It is that no female could possibly win against a trans woman that fell into the top 10% of biological males. (roughly)

2. The problem here is the difference between sex and gender has only recently been drawn. If the term "women's league" were updated to today's standards it would be 'female's league' referring to the biological sex one was born with. You're using current definitions of gender with old definitions of gender that matched 100% with biology. If we called it 'female's league' would you suddenly have no problem with the exclusion of trans people? I think not. So trying to win a debate along the same lines seems silly. When we created male versus female sports it was always intended to be sex-based.

You can argue that some males will be 10% better than other males. The problem is there's not 10% of another biological sex that are impossible for ALL biological males to beat that are trying to compete with them and say there's nothing wrong with it. There is no telling biological females to "just work harder. " There are things that are impossible to do. You can't lift the car? Just work harder!

I understand your point. Let me rephrase it in a way people on my side will understand better. You're saying that in sports some females can perform 10% better than other females, If not more. This is of course true. The thing is we have separate leagues for this. There are gold and silver leagues in soccer, D C B A leagues in tennis et cetera. We don't put an A member versus a D member and think it's an even contest. What you're essentially saying is that transwomen should be allowed to compete in female leagues. This means inevitably there will be a disproportionate number of transwomen in the higher female leagues, And that trans women can outcompete the best females if they are among the 10% of biological males to have that advantage over all females. Your view is that this is not a problem because they are the same gender. My problem is that while they are the same gender, They are not the same sex. We don't have gender-based sports. We have sex-based sports. If you take a poll of people who understand the difference between biology and gender, The majority would agree with this statement.

So to repeat. You seem to consider these as gender-based leagues instead of sex-based leagues. Your view is perfectly consistent if this is true. The problem is relatively few people agree with that stance. Most people think they are sex-based leagues. If you take this view, You're putting people who are members of a biologically superior sex in a league of people in a biologically inferior sex. It's not a problem that members of the same subset of people can be 10% better than one another. The problem is when you take a second unique subset of people that are superior and pit them against them. In this case there is some percentage of this subset that will always win, And you're expecting people to congratulate the victors of the highest leagues when they are biologically incapable of losing without seriously slacking on their training. You then say "just work harder" to those who cannot possibly achieve that level. It's at least a bit dishonest.

It really does seem like your whole position is centered around gender-based leagues instead of the commonly understood sex-based leagues due to the new definition of 'gender' not being perfectly consistent yet. So please, Answer this question: would you have a problem with it if we made sure to always say "Female League? "

3. You agree that ideally transwomen should have their own league. Why? You probably understand that they have this advantage. There may not currently be enough transwomen to kick all females out of the olypmics, But there is no guarantee that that will always be true. As stigmas against subsets of the population are removed over time, We learn just how many of them are out there. Gays were largely in hiding until they became more socially accepted. Atheists are largely still in hiding. I count transgenders much closer to Atheists than Gays in this case, Particularly trans athletes. Stigma still exists, Largely due to the fact that many 'cis' people have never had a conversation with a trans person. Just as largely, Because trans people are largely sick of having to explain themselves because they are such a small percentage of the population. Just as largely, Trans people may not be that good at explaining themselves. Largely again, Because they occasionally blow things out of proportion or misunderstand what people are intending with what they say, And they scream wildly at them. These small percentage of scenarios are publicized by right-leaning people way more than any of the normal scenarios and it furthers the stigma.

All that being said, We have no reason to think that the trans community is not going to grow in the future. As stigma decreases, Hopefully the suicide rates will decrease and more people will come out of the closet. With these factors in mind, It is clear the trans community will grow.

4. I'd need to see your study showing african-american men have an advantage when it comes to global sports. You say 77% of NBA players are african-american which is no doubt true, But I can quite easily attribute this to culture, Not a biological advantage. That would be similar to me saying white people have a biological advantage in Golf, Which is not true. Whites that are affluent happen to play golf more. This is culture. Please provide a specific link to bone mass or muscle mass and the overall statistical advantage blacks have over whites in sports and I may accept your point. I don't need to stretch very far to disprove it. Either way, The advantage would be small enough to not come close to the bio male versus female gap, And I could more than likely attribute it to nothing more than the natural margin of error that comes with all studies. If blacks had some sort of statistical advantage it would not be racist to have separate leagues. Luckily for me, Correlation is not causation and your 77% NBA player link means nothing and I have a clear explanation for it.

5. There is no contradiction for disqualifying biological sex and genes. They're sex-based sports not gene-based sports.

If everyone is training optimally it is 100% genes. But certainly, Not everyone is training optimally.

Solutions

We could eliminate sex-based sports if we were to develop a system that separated people into leagues like heavyweight/featherweight does. Nospace

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 2
cloebowie

Pro

cloebowie forfeited this round.
Thoht

Con

Happy to think with you today.

For those that missed it my opponent has posted their R3 in the comments. I'd ask that no one votes conduct to me because of this alone.

There's not a clear right answer because I have no way of convincing you 100% that my way of thinking about these matters is the "right" way to think of them. There is inherent unfairness in sports based on genetics. These differences are celebrated. However, We have distinguished different leagues based on sex because there is a large subset of males that will beat every female in a wide variety of physical contests. The problem we're having is that you see transwomen as women and females. We have not been able to fully transition anyone to the opposite biological sex they were born as yet. Until we can transition them fully, The arguments for separating sports by sex will apply to the argument against transwomen who enjoy biological male advantages competing against biological females as well. You call them transsexuals in the sense that they (some of them, Not all) are trying to transition to the opposite sex, But we both know this process is not yet complete. Our science is not advanced enough to do this. When studies can confirm that there are no inherent advantages for the average transwoman and the average biological female then we can say the competition is fair if those transwomen have undergone the procedures that the transwomen in said study had gone through.

So your view is that they're trying to transition and they're mentally women. We both agree it seems so far that they still possess the same inherent advantages from their biological male status. The problem is you're allowing this advantage strictly because they are women, And you think the definition of 'fairness' in sports should be expanded to allow this. I disagree. The definition of fairness as it exists today would exclude biological males from competing against biological females regardless of how they are trying to transition. In fact, Not all transwomen do go through with the surgery or want to. Your argument for transsex only works for those who actually want to transition to females as well as just the social norms that apply to women. Not all of them wish for that.

So no, I don't think there's a super compelling reason to value your side. I don't think there's a compelling enough reason to value my side to convince YOU that it is the correct one. However, I'm asking that you consider the feelings of the majority of biological females who have to compete against those with biological advantages that no biological female could compete with.

Your argument that SOME transwomen won't win against SOME biological females isn't the issue. It's that those that DO fall into the percentage of biological males with genetic potential that outclass EVERY female will ALWAYS win. The biological females have no chance. This is why they were separated in the first place. It's one thing to be optimistic and tell females to try to raise themselves to their highest potential. It's another to ask from them the impossible. We don't put females into competitions where they are outclassed in every physical way and tell them to just try harder. You, In my opinion, Are being extremely insensitive to those biological females that are put into this situation.

An extreme contradiction in your opinion seems to be that competitions aren't for "winning. " That any female to competes to win is wrong by definition shouldn't be competing in the first place. This is an opinion. One shared by relatively few. We all want to win. We all want to fight and achieve victory. If I created an AI and put it in a body that was 1-10% better than ANY biological male and programmed it to think it was male so it could be allowed to compete against men, That is not battling in any sort of fair sense. You're saying that biological females shouldn't want to compete to win, To just compete against themselves, Yet you're saying that transwomen should be allowed the chance to compete to win instead of just competing against themselves. This is a contradiction in your view. Why don't trans women just compete against themselves instead of forcing biological females to compete against unwinnable opponents? This isn't a point you can just waive away with "I respect females and believe in them! " We have math behind this. Serena Williams would stand no chance against many of the top 100 male tennis players. To repeat, Your position is insensitive to one group of people in an attempt to be sensitive to another group of people, The majority of which don't even agree with your position in the first place without surgery and hormones for extended periods of time, All of which has not been proven to get transwomen down to biological female levels. If winning isn't part of the competition you feel transwomen should value, Why not let them compete against biological men? Especially those who aren't doing the surgery and taking the hormones. It is a much more fair competition, And those who are taking surgery and hormones are only as disadvantaged as biological females are against trans women, If not a little less! If it is fairness we value, Transwomen should be competing against biological males. If competition is ONLY for improving onesself then let them compete against those who can give them a real run for their money and push them to their limits. If it is gender alone that we value, Then they should compete against women despite the inherent unfairness of it. I submit that I am more interested in fair competition than gendered competition.

I don't accept that transwomen are females. This distinction I have made clear with my own definitions. I don't think that many in the trans community would even disagree with this if I explained my position with them. I'm all for the eventual full transition from male to female and hope it happens as soon as possible. I'm hoping for a lot more than that with eventual third full sexes et cetera. To say I need to "prove" I'm pro-trans by agreeing with you on a point that I doubt most trans people would fully agree with is irrational. Not every opinion expressed by trans people is correct. Not agreeing with those opinions they are incorrect on is not anti-trans. I don't have to prove myself in this fashion. To suggest such is at the least mildly insulting.

If transwomen want to compete in the short term without stirring up waves until studies prove to society at large that they are not unfairly advantaged, They should seek to compete where they are at a disadvantage, Or against each other. If fairness truly doesn't matter to you and you don't think that the possibility of achieving victory is at least some motivation for biological females pushing to do their best and achieve their potential, Then I don't have a convincing argument that will change your mind. All I can say is that people do value that. I believe your opinion that victory and winning are not important is inaccurate. I think that making sex based leagues because of the biological advantages of men was a good move. I like seeing more people able to compete in leagues where they can win and feel great for doing so.

Some people are born with physical impairments that will prevent them from ever becoming an elite athlete, Even if they love a certain sport more than anything. There are leagues they can join that allow them to compete at their level.

There is no league that biological females will be able to join to allow themselves a chance at victory against the biologically advantaged transwomen if they are allowed to compete with no holds barred, As my opponent would wish. The suggestion of having a league that they could achieve victory in would be called anti-trans and those females would be looked down upon just because they wanted a chance to win.

Until transwomen can trans fully to bio female and studies confirm this, This should not be.

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@Leaning

Can you elaborate more on the voting privileges thing?
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Depends on the sport, Yuhan. Females could certainly have advantages in some, But in general they do not.

I also don't take the New York Times as a source when it comes to scientific fact. Perhaps you have an article that cites scientific studies, But I doubt they say what you think they do.
Posted by yuhancui0726 3 years ago
yuhancui0726
thot, You know that the New York Times gives the advantage to women when it comes to sports. This is because although males are stronger, Women are more flexible and agile.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Well we both want trans people to be happy. They're in a tough spot right now, But since no studies show transwomen are physically similar to females, And most evidence shows they are superior it is unfair to have them compete in the same leagues. Particularly when they as a group will likely grow over time and eventually female sports will become meaningless.

I don't see it as a tough question now. As technology improves as far as transitioning goes, It will become an easier and easier question.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
@Kvng_8
If you want voting privileges, I think you just have to message airmax1227.
https://www. Debate. Org/airmax1227/
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
Make sure to vote at this debate: "Anime sucks" https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Anime-sucks/1/
once it's over!
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
I can't actually vote so I'll just do it in the comments if that's okay.
Agreed w before debate: Thoht
Agreed w after debate: Thoht (Tied as well) - The both of you made really good arguments.
Better conduct: Tied
Spelling/Grammar: Tied
More convincing arguments: Tied - Slight edge to Thoht
Used most reliable resources: Tied

Learned some things while reading this debate. Good job to the both of you. Hard to choose a clear winner. If I had to choose, I'd say Thoht. Cloe did excellent job as well. Happy New Year
Posted by cloebowie 3 years ago
cloebowie
>> Round 3 (Part 5)

11) "You agree that ideally transwomen should have their own league. Why? " - My opponent

So they can play sports in peace, To be honest.

I agree that they could have their own league. Whether or not they should, I don't know.

12) "We have no reason to think that the trans community is not going to grow in the future. " - My opponent

The transgender community is sure to grow overtime.

I'm all for it.

13) "Please provide a specific link to bone mass or muscle mass and the overall statistical advantage blacks have over whites in sports. " - My opponent

For the record, African-American people have just as much of an advantage over Caucasian people as Caucasian people have over them. Higher bone mass density is just as much of an advantage as it is a disadvantage.

As for sources, I already addressed this in the comments section. You could also just Google it and a dozen things will pop up; it's common knowledge. This is how investigators are able to identify a decreased person's race by examining their skeleton; just as there are different amounts of melanin in people's skin, There are different levels of density in people's bones.

Finally, There's the final part of my final argument.

Thank you, Thoht, For taking my argument into account, Even though it was overdue.

Happy holidays, Everyone.
Posted by cloebowie 3 years ago
cloebowie
>> Round 3 (Part 4)

8) "You seem to consider these as gender-based leagues instead of sex-based leagues. " - My opponent

I don't consider these gender-based leagues.

Since transwomen are transitioning from male to female, I think it's only in line to transfer them from the male league to the female league.

9) "You're expecting people to congratulate the victors of the highest leagues when they are biologically incapable of losing without seriously slacking on their training. " - My opponent

You do realize how strong cisfemale athletes are?

A transwoman would not have to "seriously slack" in order for a ciswoman to defeat her, And while transwoman may have a physical advantage over ciswoman, Without a mental advantage, It'd be useless. It doesn't matter how fast you can act, If you can't think fast, Because you have to think before you can act, In order to act accordingly.

10) "Would you have a problem with it if we made sure to always say 'Female League? '" - My opponent

Transfemales are females (so yes).

You think, Because transfemales were born males, They should be handled as males, As far as sports go, While I think, Because transfemales were born females who were deprived of a female body, They should be handled as females. Usually, If an athlete is deprived of something his fellow players have, The league will accommodate him with something he'd be disqualified for having otherwise. Track runners, For instance, Aren't allowed to attach any devices to their legs, But if they've been deprived of legs, Prosthetic legs would then be an option. While many assume that prosthetic legs would put an athlete at a disadvantage, Others argue that some prosthetic legs can add an unfair amount of bounce to an athlete's steps. Either way, If deprived of legs, One is eligible to compete with what the league is able to provide for them, Just as I believe, If deprived of a female body, One should be eligible to compete with what the league is able to pro
Posted by cloebowie 3 years ago
cloebowie
>> Round 3 (Part 3)

5) "When we created male versus female sports it was always intended to be sex-based. " - My opponent

It still is intended to be sex-based.

While sports are intended to be sex-based, Transgenders are intended to be the opposite sex of which they were assigned to at birth. The women's league is intended for the sex that transwomen are intended to be.

6) "My problem is that while they are the same gender, They are not the same sex. We don't have gender-based sports. We have sex-based sports. " - My opponent

Transsexuals are transitioning into the opposite sex.

I'm not referring to cross-dressers. I'm referring to transgenders as in transsexuals, People who feel that they were born into the wrong body. While I see a lot of people (myself included) using the terms "transgender" and "transsexual" interchangeably, I'm going to differentiate them, For the sake of clarity, And address that, While transgenders identify as the opposite gender, Transsexuals identify as the opposite sex. Most, If not all, Transsexuals suffer from gender dysphoria (distress because of the mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity). Though you claim to support transwomen, By differentiating them from ciswomen, You're failing to validate their transition. They're not men; they're women who feel like they were deprived of a female body. They're not drag queens; they're not simply trying to look like ciswomen but are trying to pass as ciswomen, And by excluding them from the women's league, Not only are we not letting them pass but are just reminding them of their gender dysphoria by recognizing their biological sex and having it hold them back.

7) "There is no telling biological females to "just work harder. " There are things that are impossible to do. " - My opponent

Nothing is impossible.

Unless you can prove there isn't a single ciswoman who can defeat a single transwoman, I'm not going to underestimate them.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
cloebowieThohtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources, spelling, and grammar are (I think) close enough on both sides. Conduct, as Con said can be passed over. I personally think that Con made a better argument, but I'm going to pass over that for reasons such as I hate giving detailed reasons for my vote, did only skim the debate in some sections, already have a bias for the Con side of this type of debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.