"Trans women" should not be allowed to compete in female sports
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
There are two things of note about the resolution - first, it is not an 'on balance' statement, it is an absolute. Second, vital terms such as 'sport' and 'trans women' are not defined in the setup. This is relevant because it is fairly common knowledge that chess and billiard games are generally considered to be sports. Con argues that TW have little to no inherent advantage in these sports, implying they should be allowed to compete in them. Pro never even attempts to rebut this point, instead insisting that the debate is actually about endurance/strength-based sports. Crucially however, Pro never actually argues that chess, snooker, or darts aren't actually sports, nor do they attempt to provide an alternative definition that would be exclude these games. Instead, Pro simply asserts that the debate isn't about those types of sports without actually arguing as to why. As such, Con's argument that TW ought to be allowed to play in female divisions of sports such as chess and archery is never meaningfully challenged by Pro, which is a vital concession since it directly contradicts the resolution. Therefore, Con wins.
Pretty simple adjudication despite the bizarre confusion that other votes seem to have been captured by. PRO seems to be looking past CON's r1, which makes the case that given the wording of the resolution, sports such as chess, shooting, darts, etc ought to be included, thereby negating the prompt. Given this, PRO's arguments about HRT, biological capabilities and sexual appropriateness are passively undermined by these counterexamples. Because CON provided six sports as counterexamples, and PRO's defence is uncompelling (stating that the argument "avoids the actual controversy" and is "not the crucible where this debate is fought" without specifying why not) the resolution is clearly negated.
Final Thoughts RFV
I'm surprised, glancing at comments and votes, I assumed Con argued against the physical sports, or 'barely brought up non physical sports.
. . . But less Physical Sports were Cons 'main argument.
Not insurmountable, but Pro 'needed to,
Either argue sports are only physical sports,
Or argue skin deep discrimination is fine. Though, I think sex is a 'bit 'more than skin deep.
. . .
. . .I 'suppose Pro could 'also shift the debate, arguing "Female Sports" to be understood as Sports set aside 'only for women due to 'differences.
By such an argument Female only groups such as females only chess, could be understood to not 'truly be "Female Sports"/
'Or they can argue psychological/social differences in sex, 'even in 'trans. Argue sex to be more than skin deep.
'Too many times Pro took certain questions at face value, many in society agree with Pro, but a problem is a 'significant population 'don't.
Therefore the arguments 'against 'must be made and laid out.
Pro argued the physical well, but did not address Cons stance.
Arguments to Con.
Sources tie, due to Con undercutting Pros stance, the majority of Pros sources 'for his arguments are undercut.
They were still relevant to part of debate, and Con didn't make sources a 'large part of their own arguments I think. But Con 'did have some sources.
Both sides legible, and good 'enough conduct.
Additional RFV in comments 20, 19, 18.
RFD deataiz on comments #3, #2 [in that order]
Con tells me to interpret the resolution as written, and Pro never makes a compelling case against that. I can buy that very few people are debating whether trans women should be allowed to compete in chess, but the designation of "female sports" is broad enough to include chess, snooker, and archery. Pro tells me that Con is interpreting the resolution incorrectly and making an equivocation fallacy, but they needed to justify that "female sports" means "mainstream physical sports" rather than just insisting it means that.
Aside from that, there's not much to say on arguments, since Pro's arguments are limited to mainstream physical sports and they bet their case on me interpreting the resolution the way they want. Pro never really challenges that trans women should be allowed to compete in chess or snooker or archery, so interpreting the resolution as written, that's enough to give Con the win on arguments.
Sources to Pro since Con provided barely any while Pro was consistently adding sources to support their case. Con does question to credibility of some of Pro's sources, but identifying a bias isn't the same as flipping them. Plus Pro cited a study on muscle mass, which is strong evidence even though it's wasn't enough to prove the resolution.
Note: Quotations are those inside double apostrophes.
Round 1:
Pro:
Presents his argument objectively on the basis of physical strength and clearly outlines how biological men have considerable physical advantage to biological women. Provides sources.
On his second point he argues from an ethical standpoint. Also provides sources from real instances. Although only rare occurrences which do not generalize the argument.
Con:
Opens with a social argument about promoting inclusion as the most important goal of sports. Which barely stands since the inclusion of TW in sports has given rise to many controversies.
Non-endurance-based sports- a valid argument that physical and ethical controversies do not reasonably apply to NEBS.
First rebuttal: disregards sources saying - “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.”
When both sources clearly state that biological men showed better physical performance.
Second rebuttal: “discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport.” “but provide no evidence that most people were uncomfortable with her in changing rooms—so this can be disregarded.”
Reasonable since pro did indeed only provide sources from individual rare occurrences.
Round 2:
Pro:
“Con has failed to provide sufficient reasoning or examples his point -" allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm"”
True
“While the motion refers to mainstream physical sports where fairness is contested, they....”
The motion is not clearly stated to be addressing only physical sports.
Sticks to individual stories which do not generalize the matter.
“...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".”
Morally challenging argument but slightly deviating from the topic. Because one would have to assume men and trans-women belong to the same social group, which by the resolution alone, they are not to be regarded that way.
Con: “"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."”
Sticks to his previous point but does not provide reasoning or sources on why or whether i and ii are true.
“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.”
Again, dismisses the source.
Although the source clearly states that the changes after HRT are ‘modest’ In TW, and “…the TW generally maintained their strength levels.” .
Suggesting that con might not have read the source provided.
Adds: “Pro does not contest [1], which morally amounts to a concession.”
Easy cowboy.
Unbacked assertion while reality suggests the contrary:
“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.”
“…and even if they did, it would not establish that they do so to a degree that gives them a meaningful competitive advantage.”
Well, small differences matter in sports and claiming that TW are required to undergo ‘years’ of HRT without a valid source does not make an argument.
Pro provided a source about a 12-month therapy which backs his argument.
Round 3:
Pro:
“ The motion is understood — by any reasonable person debating in good faith — to focus on the contested terrain: mainstream competitive physical sports......”
Even though the resolution is indeed understood. A logical argument is not to be dismissed.
Con:
“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...!”
Agnosticism does not make an argument for debates. Pro has indeed provided data and sources on that whereas con has only countered with a personal assertion. Data is also required for such delicate matters.
My vote:
The rest of the debate consists of repetition of arguments and personal disputes.
While both opponents have made comparable arguments, only one of them has backed them with sources. Which is Pro.
Con shows disregard and also makes a couple of assertions which are either not compatible with reality or are not backed by data.
Pro also dismisses one of con’s arguments as ‘dishonest’.
This debate only leans on Pro’s side source-wise.
The site will probably be gone soon anyway.
Four days left, someone please vote
Can someone else vote on this?
You're on it!
Because it’s a really good debate, as evidenced by the divisive voting.
If it means all female sports, this goes to Novice. Simple.
The winner of this debate is essentially decided by what "female sports" mean. It is plural, but does that plural mean all female sports or just some?
Why does this keep getting lifted
Stop reporting my vote pussy
Thanks for voting!
These mod decisions may be appealed, but do understand that unless a specific flaw is pointed out, we're largely looking for an impression which matches our own skimming of the debate (and to that it need not draw the same conclusions).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bones // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro, 3 to con (effectively 1 to con)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
Bumping this
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lemming // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: This vote conforms to voting policy and sufficiently explains all points.
**************************************************
Well, I was referring more to an 'older time, in some countries histories, when racism was more prevalent,
Than to 'current times.
I 'suppose I could have made a different comparison, but one speaks of what one is more familiar with.
Though my familiarity is limited to reading American history.
I'd imagine from the unisex changing room perspective,
. . . Sexual Assault exists, male to male, female to female,
But individual changing rooms are not demanded.
Though, one 'could argue that more assaults are carried out by men, but this is an argument made by me, not you.
Con though 'did arg-
Well, it doesn't really matter,
One can have 'separate changing rooms, yet still allow individuals to compete in the same sports. Or have no changing rooms.
Much of my RFV 'did speak my own personal opinions and thoughts, as I sometimes use my RFV as 'notes and my surface thoughts while reading.
'But, what 'makes the vote, are not my opinions, but my observations of the debate.
Let me do a tally then,
Round 1 Pro
3 sources saying men are stronger than women.
2 sources on women uncomfortable competing against trans women.
1 source on hormone replacement side effects.
1 source on hormone therapy within a duration of 12 months.
3, I think Half the sources are undercut by Cons method of attack, in arguing less physical sports.
2, Con argues the 2 sources and quotes used don't mention changing rooms. They make arguments again undercutting with less physical sports. Arguments that shared changing rooms would not have to be used. And make an argument that discomfort alone is not enough to exclude.
1, I did not think the side effects source applied much to the debate, though I 'suppose one could argue allowing trans athletes encourages people to become trans to compete, and is encouraging dangerous behavior.
1, Con made arguments that the 12 month source was limited.
Round 2 Pro
2 sources on woman uncomfortable competing against trans women.
Has the 'same issues as the 2 sources in round one about uncomfortable competing against trans women.
Round 2 Con
1, Includes a source to argue psychological effects of therapy and participation.
2, Two sources arguing the bias in the individuals used by Pros sources.
. . .
I can understand people voting for Pro on sources, but I can also see people voting for a tie as I did. Given Cons arguments against Pros sources, and their own sources.
This debate is now lifted for the next 24 hours.
Though the vote reads more opinion than fact, I respect the vote along with the voter.
However stating - "I can 'imagine white sports players being offended by having to share changing rooms with blacks" - to compare to biological women being forced to uncomfortably change alongside biological men with intact genitalia is a categorical error, and quite frankly risks being stereotypical and prejudiced towards caucasians.
"But Con is also able to cut into Pros sources for bias and limitations."
I'd like to know the description behind this, because I used peer reviewed sources that were newer than his - which he ultimately did not refute sufficiently.
Another problem is - "Pro 'does need to make arguments about the differences between men and women, being more than skin deep."
I cited testimonial evidence of trauma and institutional bullying, along with many peer reviewed sources that show the biological imbalances.
The voter needs to elaborate upon what exactly could be better, rather than leaving a plain and ambiguous statement.
The bottom line:
Respectfully, through the lack of substance behind many claims, the categorical errors and failure to elaborate - I'm bumping this in case it does not meet DART's criteria.
Thanks for voting!
Title and Description,
Seems solid enough title and description.
Pro Round 1
1. Argues and sources physical ability differences between sexes.
2. Argues and sources societal psychological separation of sexes.
3. Kind of falls into 1.
Risks of Hormone therapy, doesn't effect debate question much I think.
'Better would be to argue Hormone therapy failure to change physical characteristics enough to outweigh natural sex. But Pro 'does mention such.
Pro argues unfairness of allowing such competition.
Con Round 1
Makes an interesting agreement, placing society as a whole over the athletes.
I don't really 'like such an argument, though I can understand where it comes from.
Examples of such in history or current society would be appreciated.
1, Yes, sports categories are social conventions,
But such. . . I don't agree with the argument, should we allow Mustang cars to compete with mustangs on the horse track?
. . I suppose if society 'benefited enough. But female sports is for 'females, horse racing is for 'horses. Invent a 'new sport that allows participants of 'any sex, or allows people to-
Allows 'Trans women to compete with 'women.
2, Social inclusion for social inclusion at the cost of truth, not always great.
A better argument by Con is trans being allowed in female sports with no strong strengths or weaknesses based on ones sex.
. . . Though I don't particularity 'agree with such, it 'does attack in an 'undercut, the main thrust of Pros arguments. Ability.
The title and Description of the debate, do not state that the sports must be highly physical.
. . . Though one could argue that men and women 'also have different brains, strengths and tendencies of mind.
. . 'Feels a bit of a cheap attack, but it 'is on Pro to guard themself against such in title and description.
. . . Arguably it's also a 'relevant to society argument. There might 'be sports leagues separated by sex. Bowling for example, or chess maybe.
Such arguments could also undercut Pros arguments about societal psychological separation of sexes in changing rooms.
Non-Endurance-Based Sports
Con makes the expected arguments and examples, though I think they would do well to source examples of real life leagues of such sex separated sports.
Rebuttals
"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."
"Most importantly, discomfort alone is not a compelling reason to exclude someone from sport."
Personally 'I think it can be, but as a society we 'do have a pretty open competition and participation culture. Blacks and whites attending schools or being on sports teams together as examples.
Con attacks Pros sources, arguing they fail to provide significant 'enough statements or data.
Pro source on hormone strength 'was a 'bit skimpy.
Con also argues source not 'relevant, due to less physical sports.
Round 1 thoughts
As Pro has not yet addressed less physical sports,
My vote would 'currently go to Con.
'Maybe sources to Pro, but note to self, read their sources before giving point.
Pro Round 2
More reasoning would be good for Con arguments about social benefit of allowing trans women to compete with women.
But the gist 'is there.
I don't see the straw men or red herrings.
It's on the 'instigator to make clear the goalposts in the title and description of a debate.
I 'think there 'are various women's only social groups, including sports.
I still don't 'agree with Con, but I think Pro needs to 'address Con's arguments.
Hm, sports. . .
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5110-sports-what-are-they
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6518-i-think-sports-should-be-categorized-by-biological-sex-and-not-gender
Some statistics are a result of culture and participation.
I think Pro should focus more on the differences in sexes and performance.
Straw Man,
I 'don't think it's a straw man, though I 'do think it wasn't what you were 'planning to debate.
Red Herring,
If Pro can successfully argue sports to mean by popular understanding the physical sports, I think they can win.
Pro focuses on strengthening his physical strength differences including trans women.
Which is good for him, 'so 'long as he successfully defines and connects sports to physical abilities where there are significant differences between men and women.
Videos aren't 'bad, but they are easily ignored by voters, or taken against the debater that uses such, due to how they 'might extend the debate.
Video also does not address Cons arguments, as Con is 'avoiding physical strength sports and changing room sports.
Pro 'does use quotes from video, to strengthen their physical arguments.
. . . Discrimination is an odd thing.
I can 'imagine white sports players being offended by having to share changing rooms with blacks.
I'm 'not saying Pro's arguments are right or wrong, but that Pro 'does need to make arguments about the differences between men and women, being more than skin deep.
. . . Or arguments on the right of individuals and cultures to discriminate on skin deep differences.
I understand that it may seem 'obvious, the differences between men and women, but a significant portion of society 'doesn't think the differences obvious.
I don't think Con was moving the Goalpost, but more proof and data can be better than 'some proof and data.
I don't see the side effects as relevant to the debate of inclusion.
Pros arguments and sources for physical differences after a year are 'alright, but could be better.
But such doesn't 'matter much per debate, because I don't think Cons main point of attack 'is the physical differences.
Pro 'Needs to either argue sports are only physical sports,
Or argue skin deep discrimination is fine. Though, I think sex is a 'bit 'more than skin deep.
. . .
. . .I 'suppose Pro could 'also shift the debate, arguing "Female Sports" to be understood as Sports set aside 'only for women due to 'differences.
By such an argument Female only groups such as females only chess, could be understood to not 'truly be "Female Sports"/
'Or they can argue psychological/social differences in sex, 'even in 'trans. Argue sex to be more than skin deep.
Con Round 2
(i) is the strong social benefits
(ii) is the lack of sufficient social harm
Con has source,
Though I- . . Hm, never mind.
Con prongs their argument some,
Claiming transwomen 'not stronger,
And making less physical sports argument.
If I were Pro, I'd focus more on the less physical sports argument. In my view, there not being physical differences is the 'real red herring, not their arguments on less than physical sports.
Con argues resolution of debate to mean 'all sports.
Con argues against Pro sources.
"First, they cited a study showing TW maintain strength after one year of HRT, which is irrelevant to TW who have undergone multiple years."
Sorry, I don't 'remember, nor noticed.
"Pro concedes TW have no performance advantage."
Quotes are good, they allow for CTRL F and search for keywords.
I don't think either side is 'trying to make false claims or used biased sources or poor inferences.
Round 2 Thoughts
I'd say Con is winning, in shifting debate Resolution,
Not that I think shifting is 'necessarily wrong.
Some people in society 'do care about Trans Women competing in sports clubs that ban Trans Women, I imagine.
Sports Clubs that might be women only in less 'physical sports.
Pro is doing 'decent in Physical Sports argument,
But Con is also able to cut into Pros sources for bias and limitations.
Pro Round 3
If Pro can show that physical sports make up 'vastly more 'sports than less physical, this would be good for Pros arguments.
Pro 'needs to do more than make 'assertion that Cons arguments do not fit common understanding of what is meant by sports.
They 'need to argue, example, and 'source their claim.
'Clear cut descriptions and resolutions of a debate are 'on the debate 'creator.
Though I 'don't like it when people undercut the 'spirit of a debate, I don't see any evidence that Con is trying to do so. Though it is 'possible.
Less Physical sports and Trans being allowed to participate or not 'are a consideration for some people, I imagine.
Pro defends his sources, some is more than none/less.
Con Round 3
I think Con would have done well to cite sources of such less physical sports that are women only.
Though, I'd assume Olympics separates less physical sports by sex, I don't know how they stand on trans.
I like poetry, and some of Pros sentences were poetically nice to look at and well crafted.
But as Con says, more logic and arguments against Cons stance would have been good.
Novice, will you consecutively bump the comments and votes of our current debate after you lose it? Or will you finally turn from novice to master? That being in maturity.
Bumping this.
As I see it, Con's "standing argument," as I voted, is off topic, i.e., not a scientific, but a societal approach. Con doers not present science that is not out-dated. And the Resolution, by designation of trans women [biological men] and sports. The obvious reference, then, of sports, is physical strength and endurance, not picking up and laying down chess pieces. Chess is a game, not a sport, even though competitive. It became the game it is today in Western Europe in the 15th century, and was only called a sport in the very late 20th century [1999] for more political reasons than entertainment.
It only takes one dishonest nitpicking statement to bring down the whole argument. And con makes a lot. But if you look past them you can also see his standing arguments. Which is why i gave a tie. Since con takes the hard position in this debate he/she must be payed the respect of further analysis. However he did not provide any sources at all and even tried to disregard those provided by pro. Honesty is indeed important in any debate. Nitpicking only shows lack of competence.
I would have waited to the conclusion of voting to comment, but since my vote was challenged, but found to meet voting rules, I’ll just comment by explanation, as voters often use this Comments section, that this debate resolution by Pro was concise, and yet argued by a tangent by Con in all rounds: The Resolve: “Trans women" should not be allowed to compete in female sports.” “Sports” in this particular usage does not apply to “sports” wherein physical characteristics are not strongly associated with biological sex, and, therefore, chess, billiards, or archery do not fit in the realm of sports that require strength and endurance as key factors. “Sports,” by definition of the Resolve, and by data provided by Pro, favor the biological male, even after taking hormone therapy. Con’s argument was not on the biological advantage by sex, a scientific resolve, demanding a scientific approach. Rather, Con’s BoP became, by example, an argument of wearing blue, but thinking pink, it is still socially acceptable to eat apricots, because they are a complimentary color to blue, and will satisfy social values. That’s completely off-topic. That sort of argument may be perfectly valid in another debate where sex is not a primary factor, and does not involve physical strength and endurance. But that was not this debate.
If it's any consolation, I, too, have been blocked.
Umbrellacorp's comment is the perfect summary of this comment section after Fauxlaw's vote.
Fauxlaw evidently gave an unbiased vote, which after investigation by moderators of this site, does not breach a single policy.
Contrary to Bones' poor observation, detailed votes like these are what keep intellectuals coming back. This site needs more detailed votes which clearly address the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. You don't let your opinion dictate the vote of a voter who's followed the websites' necessary criteria.
In regard to my opponent - I make public that he has in fact blocked me, without any provocation.
Pathetic. Insecure. Arrogant.
If one cannot handle an appropriate vote, or cannot take a well deserved loss, then he/she is too immature for this site.
Crybabies
It's very frustrating to deal with. Frankly, reading some of these votes makes me sick that these are the sorts of people who are able to determine wins and losses.
Savant's vote is fine, minus the sources point.
Votes like these are what make so few competent debaters participate on this site.
Well.... Would you look at that.
Thank you.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments) 1 (conduct)
>Reason for Decision: This vote conforms to voting policy and sufficiently explains all points.
**************************************************
"Bumping" this.
Read this post first
Argument: In each participant's R1 arguments, a severe differentiation is made interpreting the Title [Resolve]: "'Trans women' should not be allowed to compete in female sports." This, with the Description, clearly targets the "trans woman" as being a "biological man," thus establishing a scientific basis of discussion. It also separates "trans male/biological women" from the debate.
R1 for Pro v. Con distinguishes the interpretive thrust of the separate debate Burdens of Proof [BoP]; Pro offers clear argument that the debate is a scientific-based BoP. Con counters with a social distinction, which violates the Con BoP. Pro offers argument of biological science, sexual [visual distinction, not function], and statistical data to demonstrate that trans women overwhelm in competition, and embarrass and distress bio women [in shared locker room/shower conditions]. Pro further defines severe side-effects of hormone therapy as a physical survival factor. This is off-topic relative to a sports-directed BoP.
Con argues "allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," but this argument is social, not scientific, and is, therefore, off-topic to the Resolve. Then Con argues "non-endurance" sports do not draw a distinction between T[rans]W[omen] and B[io]W[omen], but then argues that "track and field, and boxing as "non-endurance" sports. Since when? Then Con adds chess, darts, and such as if physically-demanding competitive sports. Competitive, yes, but demanding? See Pro R3. Further Con argued, " It may be true that TW score higher on some markers after years of HRT, but not high enough to make a meaningful difference" but failed to provide any source for the claim, while Pro's source, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/, clearly stipulated that, "the TW generally maintained their strength levels" [as bio-men]. NIH is a more credible source than Con's un-sourced opinion.
Pro's R2 is an exercise in dismantling Con's R1 argument in total, reviewing the major points already cited above, plus adding testimony by Paula Scanlan of her emotional distress of a bio-man in her locker room, claiming to be a woman, but the obvious physical difference is not, as claimed by Con. "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," neither of which meet the Con BoP of the Resolve.
Con's R2 re-claims "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," with a source citation this time, but it is an older data set from NIH than Pro's, both of which cite reports of research into hormone therapy. While Pro's later citation outlines specific physical and psychological harm, Con's earlier dated NIH source has no such data. Con claims "My Case:
I gave a simple argument:
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.
(i) Allowing TW to compete provides strong social benefits; (ii) it does so without sufficient social harm. Pro does not contest [1 [ strong social benefit], which morally amounts to a concession." No, no concession, because the Resolve is not one of either social benefit nor harm, but scientific, and Con's argument, to date, fails that. Con is pursuing the wrong BoP.
Con: "Pro does not contest any of this." Wrong, because "any of this" is entirely off-topic relative to Con's true BoP, which should be disproving the science, not pushing social benefit.
Con claims: "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." But pro has also said that off-sport locker room. Shower encounters of TW with BW is disturbing to BW, but Con's argument is flawed because "sports such as chess, snooker, shooting, archery, or darts..." do not indulge locker rooms, even though competitive. These are not physically demanding "sports" and, therefore, do not have the variance in physical performance stress the comparison of TW and BW physical stress sports have, so, here again, Con's argument is more social than science; therefore, wrong BoP.
My RFD detail: [Read this post last]
Pro R3: A symphony in words: "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."
And "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.”
And: "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.'” [These sources were cited by Pro]
Con's R3 failed to meet the symphony but by discord, similar to the failures of R1 & R2 to argue to the Resolve, using the tired effort of the wrong BoP as stated above.
Argument points to Pro
Sources:Pro's R1 and R2 dominate in credible sourcing as noted above in Arguments section, and by re-citing NIH countered by Con opinion, only in R1, and by R2's summary of Paula Scanlan v. "Lia Thomas" [in quotes because "Lia" is a bio-man, not a bio-woman]. Con's R2 does offer a source for his R1 argument of "strong social benefits without sufficient social harm," but Con's source, as said in the Argument section, is older and out-dated data.
Legibility: Pro needs to formalize consistent source-citing. Some citations preceed an argument; others follow, making it difficult to know which source is related to which argument. Con has an inter-argument lack making points, such as in R1, making a concluding remark that points i, and ii say x and y6, but there is not point ii given. This is corrected in R2. Tie
Conduct: Con began in R2 insisting that Pro should and did concede: "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." First, that is a partipant's decision, not the opposition to insist on concession. Con loses the point on that basis alone.
But, the R2 Con conclusion seals the loss: "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'" Truism [a valid kind]: Lia Thomas is not a biological woman, and therefore cannot be referred to as such. Lia is, truth talking, reality talking, a TW, a biological man.. Ms. Gaines referred to him correctly, L.T's preference notwithstanding.
Please cast your votes