Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4749

Transgender women (otherwise classifiable as biological men) Should Not Compete in Women's Sports

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

flamebeast
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1492
rating
332
debates
40.66%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
Resolution

The resolution before us today is "Transgender women (otherwise classifiable as biological men) Should Not Compete in Women's Sports"

Stance:

I will be debating as pro in support of the supposition that Transgender women should not compete in women's sports, while my opponent will be debating the opposite.

Definitions:

Transgender women: An individual who was biologically born as a male, but transitioned into a female, either through any physical alterations to the body by hormone replacement therapy, or just by a verbal statement that they are a female (notwithstanding their masculine physical characteristics). 

Note: I will be addressing transgender women as biological males for the sake of brevity. 

Line of Approach

I will be supporting my point on the basis that 

1. The biological differences between people born as males and those born as women are too vast to allow for a fair playing field

2. The introduction of transgender women into women's sports wrongfully deprives biological women of the opportunity to gain scholarships, recognition or any other types of rewards for their talent within their sports division.

Point #1

The physical differences between biological males and females are too extreme, to the extent that ignoring them on the basis of their self-identity would be unfair to biological females. It is a well-established scientific consensus that men on average have physically stronger characteristics than women

Evidence 1: Physical distinctions

-Men on average are larger than women, possessing 10 kg of skeletal muscle

-40 percent more uppder body strength

-33 percent more lower body strenght

-Please keep in mind these statistics are on average, and not always the case when comparing any woman to any man. 


Elaboration 1: 

-These physical distinctions are essential to consider when pairing transgender women and biological women together

-In consequence, these physical distinctions would undermine the efforts of women within their divison, especially when paired unfairly with transgender women that contain the remnants, if not the entirety of the aforementioned advantages. 

-The opposition might make a case that hormone replacement surgery or other surgical operations may render a transgender women as being void of any masculine physical characteristics, thus making the playing field fair. However, this is a common misconception that my next point will address. 

Evidence 2:

-Although it may be true that some of the masculine characteristics would be removed within a biological male transitioning to a female, it is a well-corroborated assertion that the person in question still has remnants of their masculine traits that will translate into the sports that they compete in as self-identified females

-For example, transgender women still have more testosterone than biological women, even after being injected with estrogen to become more feminine (and testesterone helps in performance within sports).  (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/

-Quote from source listed above: "Notably, Jarin and colleagues show that testosterone levels in transgender women decreased significantly from former male levels, however nearly all participants maintained their testosterone levels above the female range"

-Therefore, the medical alterations of transgender women are not demonstrably sufficient to justify their participation within women's sports.  


Point #2

Secondly, introducing transgender women into women's sports undermines the opportunities of biological women to, not only succeed in sports, but to consequently win scholarship opportunities or to get deservingly rewarded within their respective sport. 

Evidence:

i) Weightlifting: 


1. The trans lifter won eight of nine competitions entered in the women’s category over the last four years

2. He then casually bench-pressed nearly 167kg — beating the current Alberta women’s record by almost 45kg.

3. Bodybuilding influencer Greg Doucette was among those highlighting the episode, noting how ludicrous it was for a man to so easily compete in a supposed drug-free event despite way higher testosterone.


1. In March 2022, Thomas became the first openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship in any sport after winning the women's 500-yard freestyle with a time of 4:33.24; Olympic silver medalist Emma Weyant was second with a time 1.75 seconds behind Thomas


1. In February 2022, Newell made history as the first transgender woman to set a Canadian record on the track. Newell broke the Canadian Women’s 45-49 record time by 6 seconds. 

2. On Jan. 8, 2023, Newell won the women’s 3000 meter event at the Winter Mini Meet for the 45-49 year-old cohort. In the days following, Newell would then go onto win the women’s 5000 meter event for the same age cohort.

3. Newell followed up these achievements Feb. 5 by winning first place in the 1500 meter event for women aged 45-49.

4. Following a birthday, Newell competed in a competition that ran from Feb. 23 through 26. and repeated the accomplishment, winning the 1,500 meter race for the 50-54 women age group.

Elaboration:

-This is an insurmountable amount of evidence that all of these transgender competitors dominating the women's division as a byproduct of their biological advantage, take away the gold medals and trophies that biological women would truly deserve

-Furthermore, this abnormal level of dominance by transgender athletes further disproves the merit in hormone replacement therapy in suppressing masculine traits within transgender women.

Conclusion

In conclusion, transgender women should not compete in men's sports on the basis that transgender women have biological advantages that not only create an unfair playing field and compromise the entirety of the women's division in any sport, but additionally ruin the opportunity for biological women to thrive within their sport environment and achieve levels of recognition and success that would help propel women's sports to a greater era of skill, talent, capability, and confidence, without biological men interfering with such a possibility. 

-Thank you. 





Con
#2
"In conclusion, transgender women should not compete in men's sports on the basis that transgender women have biological advantages"

I had to recheck the title. To line this up with the topic title it's" Transgender women (otherwise classifiable as biological men) Should Not Compete in Women's Sports "

So I'm not arguing about trans women going in men's ( cis men) sports.

So the rest of this, how consistent we'll see.

"that not only create an unfair playing field and compromise the entirety of the women's division in any sport, but additionally ruin the opportunity for biological women to thrive within their sport environment and achieve levels of recognition and success that would help propel women's sports to a greater era of skill, talent, capability, and confidence, without biological men interfering with such a possibility. "

Five women on a basketball team. One trans and physically weaker because as a male, he reached only 5'5'' in height. The other women are around 6 feet, slightly taller. They all can play very well as a team. So much so that they have to thwart the other team from thriving in a championship.

So about the recognition and success of women, that gets abolished during a win victory. The aim of sports is to ultimately sabotage somebody's success.
 Something else that comes to mind are cis women themselves that can have unique physical advantages over each other. This is why we have different weight classes in boxing.

So this is really the gist of it all. Nobody has to be placed in an unfair rigged competition. However, when a team, a player, an athlete is better or more skilled, is that an unfair advantage?

Is it that when the outcome is no matter what you do, you can't win?

If I'm up against a fighter that is unbeatable, undisputed, is there an unfair advantage here? Maybe they're just better. Just that good. Maybe that counts as unfair. We have to be just about even. The entanglement comes in drawing a line.

I'm up against a fighter that is unbeatable. Is there an unfair advantage here?

If there isn't, I must be qualified to enter the same class with them. Meaning they're not unbeatable but they beat me so they're still unbeatable.

There was an iconic martial artist that constantly gets challenged even after his death to this day. Questioning his class underestimating it suggesting they can fit into it. Suggesting this iconic master couldn't fit in theirs. They both can be cis persons.

Unfair advantage or better skilled. The controversy continues.


Round 2
Pro
#3
I will be addressing everything that my opponent has said, piece by piece: I will provide the quote of the opponent and my subsequent response:

1. "I had to recheck the title. To line this up with the topic title it's" Transgender women (otherwise classifiable as biological men) Should Not Compete in Women's Sports. So the rest of this, how consistent we'll see." 

I worded the conclusion slightly incorrectly as I said that trans women should not play in men's sports, when I meant to say Women's sports, so disregard that spelling mistake

2. "Five women on a basketball team. One trans and physically weaker because as a male, he reached only 5'5'' in height. The other women are around 6 feet, slightly taller. They all can play very well as a team. So much so that they have to thwart the other team from thriving in a championship."

The opposition has given an example of a trans woman who does not have a biological advantage against other cis women, due to this individual's lackluster genes that made them too short. This however is only an anectodal point which disregards not only the exceedingly greater amount of points of evidence I provided of trans women dominating biological women, but it additionally does not take into account that transgender women still have biological advantages in terms of testosterone.

Notwithstanding the physical weaknesses of the transgender woman in question, the opposition has not addressed all the other individuals I have listed, thus making his assertion singular, anectodal and not empirical on a more larger scale like mine.

3. " The aim of sports is to ultimately sabotage somebody's success."

This assertion made by the opponent misinterprets the purpose of sports, that is to create a fair playing field for everyone to showcase their hard work, talent and skills that they have developed to perform to the best of their abilities and win. The idea that the purpose of sports is to "sabotage" success is an unhealthy standpoint that would ruin the opportunity of women to perform fairly in their own division, on the basis that they should be sabotaged, which is simply a cynical, unreasonable and unfair approach to have.

4. " Something else that comes to mind are cis women themselves that can have unique physical advantages over each other. This is why we have different weight classes in boxing."

The opposition has answered their own question. They stated that because cis women have unique physical advantages against other cis women, this therefore warrants the introduction of biological males into women's sports. Thereafter however, the opposition admitted that the varying physical advantages of women, such as their weight should be and are separated by different weight classes in boxing. I say that if this is the case, then we should similarly separate transgender women from biological women, so that the former cannot leverage their unfair advantages against the latter. 

5. "If I'm up against a fighter that is unbeatable, undisputed, is there an unfair advantage here? Maybe they're just better. Just that good. Maybe that counts as unfair. We have to be just about even. The entanglement comes in drawing a line."

The opposition asserts that since there can be a large margin of skill difference amongst cis-gender women in sports, why should we condemn the skill difference between transgender women and biological women?

This is an invalid argument on the basis that within competitions amongst cis-gender women, if one is much more skilled than the other, that is still fair because both parties had equal physical opportunities to improve themselves, and the more skilled one took greater responsibility for their training and craft. However, when we add biological males into the equation, they may have physical capacities that some women may be simply unable to surpass, no matter how hard they train, due to the considerable margin of biological differences between them. It is important to note that this margin of skill between transgender women and biological women are OUT of the control of the biological woman to overcome, thus truly creating an unfair advantage.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the opponent has failed to address the plethora of examples I have provided of transgender women dominating biological women in sports. They provided a singular, anectodal point that a transgender woman might be shorter than their cis-women peers, which disregards that the transgender women in question still has an unfair hormonal advantage, even if it may be outweighed by his height. 

The opposition has mostly stated that a large margin of skill difference between cis-gender women justifies the introduction of transgender women into women's sports, which disregards the fact that this creates an unfair advantage which cannot be replicated in the context of two cis-gender women competing against each other, as they both had equal and fair opportunities to improve, while a transgender woman has a biological advantage that is out of the control of cis women competitors.

And finally, the opponent provided an interpretation of sports in which they justify the "sabotage" of women's sports on the basis that sabotage is the central purpose of sports, even if it may undermine the talents and skills of biological women with an unfair disadvantage. 

Overall, I propose not to discriminate against the transgender community by excluding them from sports, but morso for maintaining the integrity and improvement of women's sports, so that we may propell the realm of physical endeavor beyond the formerly male dominated era of sports, and into an age in which all genders prosper within their respective communities. 

-Thank you 

Con
#4
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
#5
extend
Con
#6
"This however is only an anectodal point which disregards not only the exceedingly greater amount of points of evidence I provided of trans women dominating biological women, but it additionally does not take into account that transgender women still have biological advantages in terms of testosterone."

So to get clarity let me ask when you say dominating, do you mean all cis women are playing in a rigged competition against them?

If so, are they aware of it?

If they are, the subject of disadvantage gets questionable because just like any opponent that is stronger, has more reach , more speed, that falls back on your training to prepare correctly to try to pull off a triumph.

If they're not aware, what do you think cis women are thinking, a rigged game , they suck, haven't met their match, what?

I'm taking it's not a mixed bag on one team. One team has all trans , the other not. I mean are we sure there isn't more to assess such as skill, the number of individuals on one side versus the other?

If we have two teams, 4 trans that are small with one cis female medium versus medium to large cis women, who has the advantage? 

It's really a case by case instead of broad brushing.

"but it additionally does not take into account that transgender women still have biological advantages in terms of testosterone."

I would take it case by case. If we're talking about brawny stocking trans women versus little cis women, that be obvious.

"Notwithstanding the physical weaknesses of the transgender woman in question, the opposition has not addressed all the other individuals I have listed, thus making his assertion singular, anectodal and not empirical on a more larger scale like mine."

You just said there's physical weakness to question. So if or when the weaknesses are declared, so much for an advantage on their side.

"This assertion made by the opponent misinterprets the purpose of sports, that is to create a fair playing field for everyone to showcase their hard work, talent and skills that they have developed to perform to the best of their abilities and win. "

The assertion that a team, team player or athlete's objective to win or lose, is either true or false. If you agree it's true then the LOSING individual or party's best, skills, talent weren't good enough. Thus poor skills, talent and their best was not the best that would of had them triumph. You have to face it. In some shape or form there's an advantage that one side that has been made the victor. 

For instance the advantage of a boxer's stamina, power, speed. Even weight difference see. You have some fighters that are wayyyyy faster than others. You have some that hit wayyy harder . There are some advantages and it's not going to be fair down the middle. If everything was even they're always be a draw. 

The thing we have to be careful of is distinguishing a poorly/ highly skilled player you can say is mismatched or a physically impossible opponent to go up against I guess according to the rules of a sport. No one is truly invincible.

"The idea that the purpose of sports is to "sabotage" success is an unhealthy standpoint that would ruin the opportunity of women to perform fairly in their own division, on the basis that they should be sabotaged, which is simply a cynical, unreasonable and unfair approach to have."

Maybe you dislike the term "sabotage". Maybe "beat" or "triumph" is preferable. Either way you made a point about achieving success. In the event of a competition, somebody has to be unsuccessful accomplished by the opposing force.

"I say that if this is the case, then we should similarly separate transgender women from biological women, so that the former cannot leverage their unfair advantages against the latter. "

Ok but what you're not catching is , is it all trans females? 
I never made a point about ALL cis females.
I said cis women themselves that can have unique physical advantages over each other. Meaning there are those on a different level can be put in a different class . Likewise with trans women that can be classed as such.

For instance, lightweight trans females classed with cis female middle weight or even perhaps within cis female light heavyweight class. See all this can be case by case sorted so in the end they're all competing trans persons with cis persons.

"This is an invalid argument on the basis that within competitions amongst cis-gender women, if one is much more skilled than the other, that is still fair because both parties had equal physical opportunities to improve themselves, and the more skilled one took greater responsibility for their training and craft."

Ok well I'm going to use the same rule about improving the training. Just like you say a person can improve their skill, she can improve strength. We don't even have to limit at physicality. She can just be smarter, the cis person that is, at beating the opponent at their own game. You say it's invalid but you just made my point that an advantage can just be turned into a weakness whether it's skill or physicality. Unless you're calling your point invalid, it works both ways .

"However, when we add biological males into the equation, they may have physical capacities that some women may be simply unable to surpass, no matter how hard they train, due to the considerable margin of biological differences between them. "

Maybe , maybe not. I'm going to use the loophole in your very point. You said "MAY have physical capacities that some women MAY be simply unable to surpass,".

It's like you just want to generalize but to be honest, we have to face the exceptions . Many people underestimate an iconic martial artist out of the 1970s that was no more than 140 lbs. There are those of the opinion that just because someone is bigger or smaller in body mass, the advantage that supercedes is with size. There are other factors such as skill, stamina, speed and cognitive ability.

A big guy versus a little guy, who'd win?

The big guy. He's got more strength. But can he be fast enough to be able to land a hit on the smaller person? 

All those large muscles take a lot more oxygen. Is it even between the two? Which one has the advantage?

Much has to be taken into consideration instead of just a blanket assessment according to just size alone.

" It is important to note that this margin of skill between transgender women and biological women are OUT of the control of the biological woman to overcome, thus truly creating an unfair advantage."

If a cis woman is 3 times stronger than a trans woman, does the cis woman have an upper advantage that you'd say is unfair?

I'm going to cut it off here. I didn't realize the debate rounds are pretty much over. This could of been more rounds, a little more time to make the arguments.

But bottom line, we can make cases by case scenarios so the competitions can be mixed with cis and trans in the name of "fairplay" ok. Have a good day.