Ideally this should be moved to Debate Mansion because it's against the rules.
But you seem to atleast be arguing in good faith. I generally don't have a decided opinion on it. So I am just going to play the devil's advocate and raise a few arguments for it, because I know nearly everyone else is going to argue against it.
1) Again, statistically on average, Transwomen who have had HRT actually perform worse in sports than ciswomen. There are exceptions, and some of these exceptions are driven by correlated issues like height advantages.
2) Most of us are neither qualified in terms of biology or sports knowledge to be handing out expert opinions on this topic in the first place.
3) It is in extremely bad faith to assume that Transwomen are transitioning to womanhood just to be win at sports. The general living status of Transwomen is much worse, extremely high suicide rates, extreme social isolation and much worse sexual harassment rates than cis women. No one would make such a decision just for competitive sports.
4) The percentage of Transwomen and transmen in sports is very small. The actual issue is marginal and the coverage is disproportional. Because a lot of conservative groups use this to manufacture outrage.
5) No one ever really discuss how disadvantaged transmen are in open events, and yet the same people don't argue for transmen to be added to women's events. Are people necessarily concerned about women's rights or again, just looking for outrage?
6) A lot of subgroups of Ciswomen are genetically advantaged over other groups. Are we going to subset every category by genetic sub-groups? If Asian women on average are shorter than everyone else, should we split sports by race?
comment:
p_commentcount