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

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