Instigator / Pro
Shane.Roy's avatar
26
Shane.Roy
1500
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Topic
#6346

"Trans women" should not be allowed to compete in female sports

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Sports
transgender
Indentity
mens sports
womens sports
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
Novice_II's avatar
25
Novice_II
1896
rating
100
debates
93.5%
won
Description

Just to clarify, me being pro does not belittle nor suggest inequality for "Trans women".
This is just the stance that biological men should not be permitted to participate in competitive sports of biological women.
Pro is with the motion of the title.
Con is against the motion of the title.

Round 1
Shane.Roy's avatar
Shane.Roy
Pro
#1
Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

Point 1: Biological capabilities

While equality is relevant when considering another individual's choice of gender, a biological man who's transitioned to a woman still contains male genes which are scientifically evident to dominate females in physical activities.
"Specifically, the absolute total body strength of women has been reported as being roughly 67% that of men."
"Adult men are typically stronger, more powerful, and faster than women of similar age and training status. Thus, for athletic events and sports relying on endurance, muscle strength, speed, and power, males typically outperform females by 10%-30% depending on the requirements of the event."


Point 2:  Sexual appropriateness

A part of competing alongside one another in a gender designated competition includes utilizing the same private facilities such as restrooms, showers, changing rooms, etc.
It has evidently been recorded by several female competitors that they have felt immense discomfort with men changing in the same private changing rooms due to different biological appearance.
For instance, women in olympic swimming competing alongside Lia Thomas reported feeling extremely uncomfortable with the whole entire process.
"An anonymous survey of elite British sportswomen has found more than 70 per cent are uncomfortable with transgender athletes competing in the female class in sport, while 67 per cent feel uncomfortable about speaking publicly on the issue."
"More than 100 elite British sportswomen have told the BBC they would be uncomfortable with transgender women competing in female categories in their sport."
"One told the BBC "your career is over" if you speak on the subject, while another said: "You can receive abuse if you support it or don't support it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Point 3: Statistical differences

Performance statistics in women's sports would be heavily distorted if biological men were to compete, due to said statistics only consisting of biological women performances.
"Adult men are typically stronger, more powerful, and faster than women of similar age and training status. Thus, for athletic events and sports relying on endurance, muscle strength, speed, and power, males typically outperform females by 10%-30% depending on the requirements of the event."

Common counter rebuttal: Hormone Replacement Therapy

While hormone replacement therapy has evidently been successful in altering the appearance and physicality of biological males, the significant gap of biological physicality remains significantly existent between biological males and females despite this form of therapy.
Potential HRT side effects include: 
  • Have a hormone-sensitive cancer, such as prostate cancer.
  • Have problems with blood clots, such as when a blood clot forms in a deep vein, a condition called deep vein thrombosis, or a there's a blockage in one of the pulmonary arteries of the lungs, called a pulmonary embolism.
  • Have significant medical conditions that haven't been addressed.
  • Have behavioral health conditions that haven't been addressed.
  • Have a condition that limits your ability to give your informed consent.
  • blood clots in a deep vein or in the lungs.
  • Stroke.
  • Heart problems.
  • High levels of triglycerides, a type of fat, in the blood.
  • High levels of potassium in the blood.
  • High levels of the hormone prolactin in the blood.
  • Nipple discharge.
  • Weight gain.
  • Infertility.
  • High blood pressure.
  • Type 2 diabetes.
- (an experiment does with biological men taking HRT, and biological women taking testosterone. All for a duration of 12 months)
- ( TW = Transgender Women. TM = Transgender Man)

"TW generally maintained their strength levels."
"One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW."

These set of possible side effects are not merely dangerous, they are horrifically life threatening complications.
However, I am not here to debate whether biological males should undergo HRT treatments.
My point remains that HRT is severely dangerous and provides an ineffective result of physicality, due to men still being significantly stronger than women in all physical aspects.

Common rebuttal: It is unethical for “Trans women” to compete within the category of their previous gender.

It is significantly more unethical to allow biological males to compete in female sports.

Though, “trans women”, may identify as women, they still withhold the physical characteristics gained through male puberty.
These characteristics include greater bone density, muscle mass, cardiovascular capacity, etc.
These biological advantages create an unfair competitive imbalance against biological females. 
Denying entry into women’s sport competitions based on biology is not discrimination, it is a mandatory movement in order to protect fairness and integrity in sport.
Just as we separate athletes by age and weight to ensure fairness, se-based categories are essential to ensuring that women have a level playing field.

Conclusion:

Through evident research and analyses, it is scientifically accurate to claim that biological men, despite what they identify as, significantly outcompete women in muscle strength, speed and power.
Including biological men in sports would distort women's performance data, heavily discourage them from performing, and through evidence of multiple surveys - has made the majority of female athletes feel severely uncomfortable. 
The common counter argument that HRT can balance biological men's physical potential with women's physical potential is dissected and disproven by multiple scientific sources.
Additionally, HRT aggravates immensely intense and life threatening diseases and complications without drastically making changes to male physicality.
The other counter argument that, “It is unethical for “Trans women” to compete within the category of their previous gender.”, collapses when taking biological advantages, and other categorical separations  into account.


Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
Con
#2
Overview
Henceforth, TW stands for trans women, and BW, for biological women.

To Compete or Not to Compete?
  • This is a fairly straightforward issue to me. If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete. Since both (i) and (ii) are true, TW should be allowed to compete.
  • (i) is obvious. Our sports categories are social conventions, and the ultimate purpose of these institutions is to fulfill social goals. So in making a decision, we weigh the pros and cons.
  • (ii) is also clear: allowing TW to compete with BW promotes social inclusion, challenges gender-based discrimination, and affirms the dignity and identity of trans individuals in public life. The main potential harms—centered around fairness—pale in comparison, particularly because those concerns don't apply to non-endurance or non-strength-based sports.
(ii) Non-Endurance-Based Sports
  • Let’s cut to the chase: most of the arguments presented here are based on TW having an unfair performance advantage.
  • Whether or not that is true, it doesn't matter in sports where TW would have no notable performance advantage—or may even have slight disadvantages. These include sports that are not primarily based on strength or endurance, such as track and field or boxing.
  1. Chess: Recognized as a sport by the IOC, TW would not have a performance advantage over BW. They should therefore be able to compete in women's chess tournaments.
  2. Shooting: In events like the 10m air rifle, women slightly outperform men, so TW may even have a slight disadvantage.
  3. Darts, Billiards/Snooker, Archery: These are based on precision, form, and technique—areas where strength and endurance play little to no role. These sports have male/female separation, and to the extent that persists, TW should be allowed to compete with BW. 
  • There are many more beyond what I listed. None of Pro’s arguments are relevant to these types of sports, so we can effectively discard his entire first round. However, I will address some of his points below.
Rebuttals
Point 1 / 3
  • This point is simply irrelevant. Both studies discuss differences between males and females in strength and power; no one contests that males on average fare better in those categories.
  • Con essentially repeats the same claim in "Point 3," even reposting the same quote. Strangely, they present these as separate arguments.
Point 2
  • Pro argues that many people feel uncomfortable with TW in changing rooms or in competition generally. First, I’ll address the data, then the ethics.
  • Pro claims:
"It has evidently been recorded by several female competitors that they have felt immense discomfort with men changing in the same private changing rooms due to different biological appearance."
  • They cite Lia Thomas as an example but provide no evidence that most people were uncomfortable with her in changing rooms—so this can be disregarded.
  • Pro then cites two sources suggesting that many—perhaps most—athletes are uncomfortable with TW competing in general. But this says nothing about discomfort due to changing room issues. Furthermore, this concern is only relevant to sports with shared dressing spaces, which is not always the case.
  • It’s also likely that those surveyed were not considering sports where TW lack any performance advantage—like chess, darts, and e-sports. Pro offers no evidence that accounts for this variable. And these sports usually don’t even involve public dressing rooms to begin with.
  • Most importantly, discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport. If someone is entitled to compete, the satisfaction and fulfillment they gain plausibly outweighs the discomfort of many others on utility grounds.
While hormone replacement therapy has evidently been successful in altering the appearance and physicality of biological males, the significant gap of biological physicality remains significantly existent between biological males and females despite this form of therapy.
  • Pro claims HRT fails to eliminate the "significant biological physicality gap" between TW and BW. But they cite no evidence for this claim, nor do they define what "significantly existent" means. It may be true that TW score higher on some markers after years of HRT, but not high enough to make a meaningful difference—especially in sports where strength/endurance isn’t central. Again, this is irrelevant to non-strength-based sports.
  • They then reassert the claim without additional support, so it can be dismissed unless they provide actual data.
  • What Pro must show is that TW have an unfair advantage across all sports with male/female divisions—not just some. Since they have not done this, their entire first round is nearly useless.
“But, HRT has disadvantages…”
  • Pro misleadingly highlights the potential side effects of HRT but omits its well-documented benefits: reduced anxiety and depression, lowered perceived and social distress, and improved self-esteem and quality of life for both trans women and men.
  • Every medical treatment has potential side effects—this doesn’t disqualify them. Treatments are deemed safe based on evidence of benefits outweighing risks, backed by comprehensive medical research.
  • Moreover, this is simply irrelevant. The debate isn’t about whether TW should undergo HRT, but whether they should be allowed to compete with BW.

Round 2
Shane.Roy's avatar
Shane.Roy
Pro
#3
From my deep analysis of Con's argument, there is clear use of fallacies such as straw man, and moving the goalpost.
My opponent has clearly presented an argument consisting of intellectual dishonestly cloaked as an intellectual analysis.
Let's dissect this carefully.

Rebuttal 1:

"This is a fairly straightforward issue to me. If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete. "

Con has failed to provide sufficient reasoning or examples his point -" allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm"

Rebuttal 2:

"The main potential harms—centered around fairness—pale in comparison, particularly because those concerns don't apply to non-endurance or non-strength-based sports."

"Let’s cut to the chase: most of the arguments presented here are based on TW having an unfair performance advantage.
Whether or not that is true, it doesn't matter in sports where TW would have no notable performance advantage—or may even have slight disadvantages. These include sports that are not primarily based on strength or endurance, such as track and field or boxing."

"It’s also likely that those surveyed were not considering sports where TW lack any performance advantage—like chess, darts, and e-sports. Pro offers no evidence that accounts for this variable. And these sports usually don’t even involve public dressing rooms to begin with."

"What Pro must show is that TW have an unfair advantage across all sports with male/female divisions—not just some. Since they have not done this, their entire first round is nearly useless."

"It may be true that TW score higher on some markers after years of HRT, but not high enough to make a meaningful difference—especially in sports where strength/endurance isn’t central. Again, this is irrelevant to non-strength-based sports."

My opponent uses clear examples of fallacies such as straw man, equivocation and red herring.

Equivocation fallacy:

Definition = occurs when a key term or phrase is used in an argument with multiple meanings, and the argument shifts between those meanings without clarification.

My opponent commits equivocation fallacy by using the term 'female sports' inconsistently.
While the motion refers to mainstream physical sports where fairness is contested, they shifted the meaning to include games such as chess, snooker, archery and darts.
This tactic avoids the actual controversy within the argument, and ultimately misleads the debate.

Straw man fallacy: 

Definition = Misinterpreting an argument in order to make it easier to refute.

My opponent commits straw man by consistently framing my stance to be opposing TW from competing alongside women in less controversial ways, such as chess, snooker, shooting, archery and darts. 
In reality, my stance clearly opposes the controversial, and very frequently debated topic of whether TW should be allowed to compete alongside women in mainstream sports.

Red herring:

Definition = occurs when someone introduces irrelevant information or a side topic to distract from the main issue being discussed.

Mainstream, strength based sports are where the controversy, and more importantly this debate lies.
Heavily considering the minority instead of the majority, where the controversy lies, is a mere distraction from the primary topic of debate.

Rebuttal 3:

"Point 1 / 3"

"This point is simply irrelevant. Both studies discuss differences between males and females in strength and power; no one contests that males on average fare better in those categories."

"Con essentially repeats the same claim in "Point 3," even reposting the same quote. Strangely, they present these as separate arguments."

For clarification.
Point 1 sorely focuses upon biological capabilities
Point 2 explicitly focuses upon performance statistics being distorted if TW are permitted to compete alongside biological women.
The same source is cited for both points, due to the source supporting both points.
Said Source Stating:
"Adult men are typically stronger, more powerful, and faster than women of similar age and training status. Thus, for athletic events and sports relying on endurance, muscle strength, speed, and power, males typically outperform females by 10%-30% depending on the requirements of the event."

Additionally Con contradicts his stance by stating:
"This point is simply irrelevant. Both studies discuss differences between males and females in strength and power; no one contests that males on average fare better in those categories."
If Con states that he does not contest that biological males are, "far better in those categories", he effectively supports the biological fact that TW being physically dominant within the vast majority of sports.
Which has clear effects of competitive imbalances between TW and biological women.

Rebuttal 4:

"They cite Lia Thomas as an example but provide no evidence that most people were uncomfortable with her in changing rooms—so this can be disregarded."

Con is correct, I should have provided sources of evidence for women feeling discomfort with the process competing alongside Lia Thomas.

Source + Testimonial evidence:
Paula Scanlan, a former teammate of Lia Thomas speaks on behalf of the biological women forced to compete alongside Lia Thomas.
I strongly advise the audience to watch this 4 minute video, as this testimony goes in depth in regard to the severely uncomfortable and unprecedented experiences of the biological women compete alongside Lia Thomas.

Notable quotes from Paula Scanlan:

Discomfort related:
Q1 - "My teammates and I were forced to undress in the presence of Leah, a 6'4 tall biological male fully intact with male genitalia 18 times per week"
Q2 - "Some girls opted to change in bathroom stalls and others use the family bathroom to avoid this"
Q3 - "We tried to voice our concerns to the athletic department, we were told that Lia's swimming and being in out locker room was non negotiable, and we were offered psychological services to attempt to re-educate us to become comfortable with the idea of undressing in front of a male."
Q4 - "To sum up the university's response: We the women were the problem, not the victims"
Q5 - "We were expected to conform, to move over and shut up. Our feelings didn't matter"
Q6 - "The university was gaslighting and fear mongering women to validate the feelings and identity of a male."

Performance related:
Q1 - "Leah, formally Will, had personal best times in every freestyle event that ere faster than the women's world records"
Q2 - "the first NCCA champion in our women's team history"

The testimony goes into more points and further nuance into the discomfort of the women and the biological disadvantages they experienced.

This other 2 minute video - (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/u-ZDTAzeB10) - goes deep into detail in regard to the dialogue of the situations, and the struggles of the women.

There are several other testimonies which echo the exact same concerns, such as ones from Lia Thomas' other former teammate, Riley Gaines.

"Most importantly, discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport. If someone is entitled to compete, the satisfaction and fulfillment they gain plausibly outweighs the discomfort of many others on utility grounds."
Even worse is the morally bankrupt rhetoric in regard to, "discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport".
With this logic, forget about restricting TW alone.
Let's allow grown men to compete with all females. Because we all know that, "the satisfaction and fulfillment they gain plausibly outweighs the discomfort of many others on utility grounds".

I, "plausibly", estimate that Con does not comprehend the weight of discomfort among the women.
I strongly urge Con to watch the above videos, as maybe from the testimonies he will realize that traumatizing, and outright constitutionally bullying/insulting women  is not outweighed by a winner's, "satisfaction and fulfillment".

"Pro claims HRT fails to eliminate the "significant biological physicality gap" between TW and BW. But they cite no evidence for this claim, nor do they define what "significantly existent" means.

"They then reassert the claim without additional support, so it can be dismissed unless they provide actual data."

This is a classic example of moving the goalpost fallacy.

Moving the goalpost fallacy = fallacy that occurs when one side unfairly changes the criteria for success or proof after the other side has already met the original criteria.

My opponent commits to this fallacy by means of  dismissing my arguments by stating that I haven't met the criteria of providing evidence to this claim, when in reality, I clearly have.
I cited source - (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/ ) - and quoted - "TW generally maintained their strength levels."
"One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW.".
This eliminates the false claim that I haven't cited evidence to my claim.

Furthermore - "significantly existent", is quite easily be comprehended by one who knows basic English.
But for my opponent, this means that despite the 1 year HRT trial, strength remained largely apparent within the biological males.

"Every medical treatment has potential side effects—this doesn’t disqualify them. Treatments are deemed safe based on evidence of benefits outweighing risks, backed by comprehensive medical research."

Con is correct to state that, "Every medical treatment has potential side effects—this doesn’t disqualify them.". 
However, according to the context of HRT, having several severe complications and possibilities of horrific diseases be more common with taking HRT is dangerous.
For instance, if COVID 19 vaccines had more common side effects of severe complications and possibilities of horrific diseases, the vaccination rates would significantly drop when taking logic and individual sentiment into account.

"Treatments are deemed safe based on evidence of benefits outweighing risks, backed by comprehensive medical research."
I will dismiss this claim, as Con has done with many of my claims, except fallaciously. 
Where's Con's evidence that HRT is widely deemed safe?
Where's Con's evidence that HRT is backed by comprehensive medical research?
Con's arguments clearly lack a basis of evidence, are at the very least sources.

"Moreover, this is simply irrelevant. The debate isn’t about whether TW should undergo HRT, but whether they should be allowed to compete with BW."

"However, I am not here to debate whether biological males should undergo HRT treatments.
My point remains that HRT is severely dangerous and provides an ineffective result of physicality, due to men still being significantly stronger than women in all physical aspects."

I explicitly stated this within my previous argument.

I look forward to Con's attempt of rebuttal.
Hopefully without any  fallacies.






















Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
Con
#4
Notes
  • In my Round 1, I referenced a label (ii), and while the meaning was inferable, it was not positioned properly. The remark should be as follows:
"This is a fairly straightforward issue to me. If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits, (ii) without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete. Since both (i) and (ii) are true, TW should be allowed to compete."
  • So, while it may have been obvious, for full clarity:
(i) is the strong social benefits
(ii) is the lack of sufficient social harm

  • Next, this text from my round 1:
...reduced anxiety and depression, lowered perceived and social distress, and improved self-esteem and quality of life for both trans women and men.
Although there are some conflicting data, GAHT overwhelmingly seems to have positive psychological effects in both adolescents and adults. Research tends to support that GAHT reduces symptoms of anxiety and depression, lowers perceived and social distress, and improves quality of life and self-esteem in both male-to-female and female-to-male transgender individuals.

Overview
  • Recall that this debate resolves that "'Trans women' should not be allowed to compete in female sports," not whether they should be allowed to compete in strength/speed/endurance-based sports. Hence, Pro's arguments from Round 1 are effectively useless.
  • Whether or not TW should use HRT is irrelevant to this debate. The question is whether or not they should be allowed to compete.
  • Whether or not, on average, males are stronger than women is also irrelevant. What matters is whether the biological markers TW retain after HRT are significant enough to create an unfair performance advantage in a given sport. This has not been shown.

My Case
I gave a simple argument:
  1. If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits, and (ii) does so without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete.
  2. (i) Allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits; (ii) it does so without sufficient social harm.
  3. So, TW should be allowed to compete.
Premise [1]
  • Pro does not contest [1], which morally amounts to a concession.
Premise [2]
  • What about [2]? Pro says:
Con has failed to provide sufficient reasoning or examples his point - "allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm"
  • This is false. First, I argued that allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits, quoting myself:
...allowing TW to compete with BW promotes social inclusion, challenges gender-based discrimination, and affirms the dignity and identity of trans individuals in public life.
  • Pro does not contest any of this.
  • Second, I argued that the potential harms pale in comparison, since there is no risk of unfairness in sports that don't depend strongly on endurance, speed, or strength. Pro does not contest this either—in fact, Pro seems to concede it—effectively conceding the debate, then attempts to reframe the resolution, while falsely accusing me of committing several fallacies.
  • This is more than sufficient. I have outlined the key social benefits and harms and shown that the former outweigh the latter. Since the argument is deductively valid, the conclusion follows. None of my arguments have been adequately responded to.

Confused Fallacy Claims
  • A lot of Pro's round is wasted making false claims that I committed informal fallacies—which is ironic.
"Equivocation tho..."
  • I am not equivocating on the notion of "female sports." Pro says:
"...the motion refers to mainstream physical sports where fairness is contested..."
  • This is simply a lie. The resolution, as we can all see, is:
"'Trans women' should not be allowed to compete in female sports."
  • It does not specify that the sports must be "mainstream" or of a certain kind. So, there is no equivocation.
"Strawman tho..."
  • Pro says:
"My opponent commits straw man by consistently framing my stance to be opposing TW from competing alongside women in less controversial ways, such as chess, snooker, shooting, archery and darts."
  • This is hard to read—and another falsehood. The position Pro is defending is that TW are not to compete in all sports, per the resolution. If Pro means to say that TW should compete in some female sporting events, then he has conceded the debate.
"Red-herring tho..."
  • Pro says:
"Heavily considering the minority instead of the majority, where the controversy lies, is a mere distraction from the primary topic of debate."
  • It is unclear what Pro means by “majority” and “minority” here. The majority of what? The minority of what?
  • Anyway, my point—that there are several sports Pro's arguments do not touch—is directly relevant to a debate about whether TW should be allowed to compete in female sports. No red herring here.

A Reminder
  • Let me re-emphasize this, because it is decisive:
  • If Pro concedes that trans women should be allowed to compete in any female sports—whether it’s chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts—then Pro has conceded the debate.
  • Why? Because the resolution is not:
"Trans women should not be allowed to compete in certain female sports,"
  • or
"Trans women should not be allowed to compete in mainstream physical female sports."
  • The resolution is:
"Trans women should not be allowed to compete in female sports."
  • That is an absolute claim. If Pro admits even one legitimate exception—if they say TW should be allowed to compete in even one female sport—then they are agreeing that the resolution is false.
  • So, if Pro takes the position that TW should be allowed in some female sports, they are not defending the resolution. That is a complete concession.

Rebuttals
  • There’s a lot of confusion here—not on my part.
  • As I said, I do not contest that, on average, biological males perform better on markers of strength, speed, etc. Repeating the same quote adds nothing. This fact is irrelevant to the debate, because TW who are candidates to compete have undergone hormonal therapy.
Pro contradicts his stance by stating:
"This point is simply irrelevant. Both studies discuss differences between males and females in strength and power; no one contests that males on average fare better in those categories."
If Con states that he does not contest that biological males are “far better in those categories,” he effectively supports the biological fact that TW are physically dominant within the vast majority of sports.
  • First, this is a misquote—I said "fare better," not "far better."
  • Second, this is just confusion. The fact that biological males on average rank better on these metrics does not show that TW who have undergone years of treatment do, and even if they did, it would not establish that they do so to a degree that gives them a meaningful competitive advantage. This is a non-sequitur.

"Discomfort..."
  • Pro concedes that they made such an assertion without any supporting evidence, and eventually attempts to support their claims by citing testimony from a right-wing speaker and former Penn State swimmer, and another openly right-wing transphobe (see concluding notes below). 
  • This is not a good sign—these are people who would already be biased against TW.
  • Again, we don’t make decisions about athletic participation based on the discomfort of right-wingers, transphobes, or anyone else. Imagine a world where people’s discomfort with Michael Phelps competing was taken as a reason to disqualify him—we would never accept that.
  • So, Pro needs to provide an actual argument explaining why TW should not compete based on discomfort, which they fail to do.
  • Pro calls my otherwise reasonable stance "morally bankrupt," but provides no argument to support this—it’s just an emotional platitude.

TW Post-HRT
  • Recall, I provided several examples of sports where Pro concedes TW have no performance advantage. My point is only relevant to the subset of sports where such an advantage is disputed—it does not affect my prior arguments.
  • Previously, I pointed out that Pro claims TW retain unfair advantages afer HRT.
I said that Pro has provided no evidence of this. Why?
  • First, they cited a study showing TW maintain strength after one year of HRT, which is irrelevant to TW who have undergone multiple years.
  • Second, even assuming some strength is retained, they have not shown that this is sufficient to provide an unfair competitive advantage across all sports.
  • To support this claim, Pro must:
  1. Show that the supposed advantage exists after years of HRT—not just one.
  2. Show that the retained biological traits result in an unfair competitive advantage in all sports.
  • Pro has not done either.

Conclusion
  • Heading into the final round, things are fairly straightforward. I have presented unrefuted and well-supported arguments.
  • Pro has responded with false claims (possibly deliberate), biased sources, and poor inferences. They’ve failed to meet the burden of proof and have, at times, misunderstood the resolution itself.
  • The conclusion follows: TW should be allowed to compete in female sports.

Concluding Notes
  • Re. Riley Gains transphobia: in the link, you will see publicly makes transphobic remarks like:"
“Lia Thomas is not a brave, courageous woman who EARNED a national title. He is an arrogant, cheat who STOLE a national title from a hardworking, deserving woman,”

Round 3
Shane.Roy's avatar
Shane.Roy
Pro
#5
Thank you, Con, for your response — a rhetorical soufflé: puffed up, elaborate, but hollow at its core. You parade around a fallacious technicality, misframe the resolution, and hang your entire argument on a loophole the size of a dartboard — then claim victory like a magician who disappears his own credibility.
Let’s begin the autopsy.

1. Resolution Evasion — The Great Escape Act

Con continues to cling to one brittle lifeline: that the resolution is “‘Trans women’ should not be allowed to compete in female sports”, and that because I did not explicitly ban trans women from every single sport — including chess and darts — I have “conceded” the debate.
This is not an argument; it’s a hostage situation with semantics.
Let’s be clear. The motion is understood — by any reasonable person debating in good faith — to focus on the contested terrain: mainstream competitive physical sports. To insist that the inclusion of darts or snooker somehow nukes the legitimacy of decades of concern about track, swimming, rugby, and boxing is not just laughable — it’s offensive to both logic and debate ethics.
This is the equivalent of saying, “Ah, you agree children can eat some sugar — so you’ve conceded that a 5-year-old should be allowed to eat 5kg of jellybeans per day.” Ridiculous. Transparent. Embarrassing.
This is Con hiding in the pantry of irrelevant sports while pretending he’s winning the war in the arena.

2. Fallacies on Parade — And None of Them Mine

Con suggests I’m confused about what constitutes equivocation, straw man, and red herring. Yet he builds his entire second-round rebuttal on those very techniques:
  • Equivocation: You switch between “female sports” as a broad term to include all sports — even where sex doesn’t matter — while ignoring the context and public understanding of what the phrase actually refers to. This is textbook equivocation.
  • Straw man: You accuse me of supporting a blanket ban, then attack that invented version of my stance while ignoring the real argument — that physical competitive sports should remain segregated by biological sex to protect fairness.
  • Red herring: You bring up chess and billiards, knowing full well they are not the crucible where this debate is fought. That’s like debating national defense and pivoting to paintball safety rules.
So no, I won’t allow you to dress up logical misfires as philosophical sophistication. You can sprinkle powdered sugar on a boot and call it a beignet — it’s still inedible.

3. Moral Framework — The Tyranny of Utility

Your moral compass, Con, spins like a weather vane in a hurricane.
You argue — coldly and shockingly — that even if dozens of women feel violated, cornered, and humiliated in the locker room, their discomfort is outweighed by one trans athlete’s “sense of fulfillment.”
Do you hear yourself?
This isn’t utilitarianism. It’s philosophical sociopathy. You cannot simply tally pleasure vs. discomfort and declare justice served. Rights are not tokens in a casino — they are principles carved from moral stone. To tell women, “We know you’re uncomfortable undressing next to a 6'4’’ biological male with male genitalia, but his euphoria trumps your trauma” is not inclusion. It’s ideological colonization masquerading as compassion.
And you compare it to Michael Phelps? A man who shattered records through talent — not by migrating into a less competitive category. That analogy is so warped it belongs in a Salvador Dalí painting.

4. HRT and The Myth of Physical Equalization

You accuse me of failing to provide evidence. Yet you conveniently ignore direct data from peer-reviewed literature stating:
“TW generally maintained their strength levels.”
“One year of gender-affirming treatment resulted in robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, but modest changes in TW.”
Your response? “But what about after more years of HRT?” — as if science is your personal escape hatch. You offer zero counter-data. Not a shred.
Worse still, you demand I “prove an unfair advantage across all sports.” That’s like demanding we prove steroids make every single person better at every single event before banning them. It’s absurd.
Let’s be honest: no one thinks a trans woman will dominate in chess. The concern is swimming, sprinting, weightlifting, rugby, and combat sports — and in those fields, the biological advantages do not vanish. They persist — bone structure, lung capacity, tendon density, muscle fiber type — and they cannot be reversed with estrogen or good intentions.
To argue otherwise is not just anti-scientific. It’s anti-woman.

5. Closing Metaphor — The House of Sand

Con’s case is a mansion built on a sandbar. His arguments, while rhetorically polished, buckle under the weight of scrutiny.
He hides behind fringe sports.
He redefines terms mid-debate.
He tramples female dignity in the name of progressive optics.
He cites no science — only ideology.
And worst of all, he mistakes debate for sophistry and thinks style can cover for substance.
But substance matters.
Fairness matters.
Biological women — many of whom have fought for decades for space in sports — matter.

Conclusion:

I stand by the resolution. Trans women should not be allowed to compete in female sports where physical performance determines outcome.
Let them compete in open divisions. Let them excel in gender-neutral events. But do not let fairness be sacrificed on the altar of political fashion.
This is not about exclusion. It’s about integrity — in sport, in science, and in society.

Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
Con
#6
Overview
  • Once again, this debate resolves that "'Trans women' should not be allowed to compete in female sports," not whether they should be allowed to compete in strength/speed/endurance-based sports.
  • This debate does not resolve that TW should not be allowed to compete in strength and endurance-based sports, but in female sports—many of which emphasize technique and precision, like archery.
  • Pro has not contested that TW should be allowed to compete in these sports, so Pro has failed to uphold the resolution.

My Case
My argument is simple and sound. Recall:

[1] If (i) allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits, and (ii) does so without sufficient social harm, then they should be allowed to compete.
[2] (i) Allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefit (ii) without sufficient social harm.
[3] Therefore, TW should be allowed to compete.

Premise [1]
  • Pro does not contest [1]. As stated, this morally amounts to a concession.
Premise [2]
  • Pro's objection to this premise came last round, in which he asserted:
Con has failed to provide sufficient reasoning or examples his point - "allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm."
  • I decisively showed this was false in Round 2. I also showed how trying to reframe the resolution won’t work. If there are female sports TW should be allowed to compete in, Pro has simply lost the debate, see:
  • If Pro concedes that trans women should be allowed to compete in any female sports—whether it’s chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts—then Pro has conceded the debate.
  • Pro's commentary in the final round is an echo of points I have already responded to.
  • I have presented a valid deductive argument, supported the premises, and Pro has provided no lasting objection.
  • Since Premises 1 and 2 are both true and the argument is valid, the conclusion follows.

Confused Fallacy Claims
  • Same deal here—regurgitated false claims that I committed various fallacies.
"Equivocation tho..."
  • This debate resolves that "'Trans women' should not be allowed to compete in female sports." I am not equivocating on the notion of "female sports" by pointing out that not all female sports are physically intensive.
  • This would be like saying I am equivocating on the notion of "human being" by pointing out that some humans are tall.
"Strawman tho..."
You accuse me of supporting a blanket ban...
  • Pro concedes that he does not support preventing TW from competing in all women’s sports. Thus, Pro has conceded the debate. Voters may respond accordingly.
"Red-herring tho..."
You bring up chess and billiards...
  • Yes, since these are sports that are either sex-separated (like billiards) or have gender-exclusive tournaments (like in chess). This is not a red herring—they are examples of female sports in which TW should be allowed to participate.
No fallacies here, although I can’t say the same for my opponent.

A Reminder
  • At this point, Pro has conceded the debate. He implies he does not defend that TW should be barred from competing in sports like billiards, archery, etc.
  • This is merely a concession of the affirmative stance on the resolution. As stated earlier, voters ought to respond accordingly.

Rebuttals
"Discomfort..."
  • Here are some quotes from Pro:
  • Your moral compass, Con, spins like a weather vane in a hurricane.
  • You argue — coldly and shockingly —...
  • This isn’t utilitarianism. It’s philosophical sociopathy.
  • ...they are principles carved from moral stone.
  • ideological colonization masquerading as compassion.
  • What do all these quotes have in common? Simply, none of them are arguments! They are just emotional platitudes. While I make arguments, Pro spits out emotional one-liners, so we can dismiss them.
  • Pro does not respond to my argument using Michael Phelps as a hypothetical example:
Again, we don’t make decisions about athletic participation based on the discomfort of right-wingers, transphobes, or anyone else. Imagine a world where people’s discomfort with Michael Phelps competing was taken as a reason to disqualify him—we would never accept that.
  • They just spout more emotional poetry. I am somewhat surprised at the quality of debate, but it doesn’t matter—it only makes my case more decisive.
  • Pro has provided no argument that, based on discomfort, TW should not be allowed to compete (they also do not contest, citing the testimony of a known transphobe), so this point decisively goes to Con.

TW Post-HRT
  • This point of the debate concerns whether or not TW would necessarily have an unfair advantage against BW even in endurance/strength-based sports. I argued that Pro has not shown evidence for this. Why? In quote:
First, they cited a study showing TW maintain strength after one year of HRT, which is irrelevant to TW who have undergone multiple years.
Second, even assuming some strength is retained, they have not shown that this is sufficient to provide an unfair competitive advantage across all sports.
To support this claim, Pro must:
  1. Show that the supposed advantage exists after years of HRT—not just one.
  2. Show that the retained biological traits result in an unfair competitive advantage in all sports.
Pro has done neither.

Since his study does not do this, re-posting the study does nothing here.
  • Pro says:
You offer zero counter-data. Not a shred.
  • This is merely shifting the burden of proof. Pro asserted that TW have an unfair performance advantage in certain sports. I can remain agnostic on this question, since there are sports in which they lack such an advantage—which Pro has conceded!
  • Pro adds:
Worse still, you demand I “prove an unfair advantage across all sports.” That’s like demanding we prove steroids make every single person better at every single event before banning them. It’s absurd.
  • There is a lot of confusion here. We ban steroids not because they make people better, but because they give them an unfair performance advantage—whether they end up better at the sport or not.
  • Same with TW: they can only be barred if they have an unfair performance advantage.
  • In both cases, this needs to be supported with sufficient evidence, which has not been presented.
  • If it is not shown that TW have an unfair performance advantage in all sports—but only in some—then there is no justification to bar them from all sports, just the ones where the unfair advantage exists. Frankly, I am surprised I have to explain this.

Conclusion
  • This one was pretty one-sided.
  • Pro has failed to object to my case.
  • Pro conceded the debate and tried to reframe the resolution multiple times, attempted to shift the burden of proof for claims he made, made at best false claims and at worst lied about me committing several fallacies, and responded to my arguments with emotional platitudes—glorified poetry.