Wait, where are you going? You still haven’t shown this group of trans people that are the top of women’s sports.

Statistically, if there is an advantage, trans people would be the top of their sports, given that all other factors would be normalized. So, you simply have to show that there is a congregation of trans people at the top. That would inarguably prove that you are correct and there is a competitive advantage to being trans. If you leave, I will continue to be under the (correct) assumption that there is no advantage to being trans.

Unless you can point to all of the trans athletes dominating sports right now, my point is pretty easy to defend. If it is a competitive advantage, there would be multiple trans athletes at the top of women’s sports regardless of how uncommon being trans is, and there simply isn’t.

You’re saying there’s not enough data, but you’re also saying that it shouldn’t be allowed, therefore ensuring there will never be enough data using, again, the exact same excuses for making black leagues (competitive advantage). And to accuse me of cherry-picking while explicitly doing so is ironic, since I was using aggregated studies.

It would be simpler for you to claim that you will never accept trans people, instead of trying to use logic to defend your stance, because you’re wrong.

No, I get it. But, you’re using what you feel is true versus what is true. The “advantage” you’re talking about isn’t significant among any study, ranging from a 7% advantage in some athletic categories to a 13% disadvantage in others.

Competitive sporting associations have rules and regulations for trans athletes competing in sex-segregated leagues, and they typically involve around two years on HRT and I’m not sure if you’re aware of the side effects of starting HRT, but athletes typically see substantial muscle loss. These competitive organizations do not see trans athletes excel when following these rules. And that is because trans athletes aren’t superior to cis athletes.

The strongest and tallest man probably has some advantages in some sports over the tallest and strongest woman, but you need to compare the strongest and tallest trans man to the man and trans woman to woman because those comparisons are surprisingly more in favor of the cis athlete than you would probably like for a whole host of reasons.

The first is that trans women do not have a big advantage over cis women. They have, at best, a very slight advantage, depending on their time on HRT and age.

The second is that there isn’t a lot of trans people. Trans people make up around 2-3% of the population, so they would have around 1/30th of the number of teammates in their school. That would be difficult to make a full team around. And because they’re segregated out, they would need to find other teams to play against, as well.

The third thing you’re missing is that you really only care about trans women in this debate. Do you care if trans men compete against cis men? They compete at very similar levels, too, and if you think being born as a woman is a disadvantage, then why do they do just as well after transitioning?

And the last thing is that we have gendered leagues due to a sexist history behind sports. Women weren’t allowed to compete in a variety of sports for a long time. Women’s leagues were initially created for the same reason black leagues were created. We have kept them because they are a really lazy way to determine what category of play you are in, as though they act similar to weight classes in wrestling. But athletes within the same sex can compete at completely different abilities for different reasons. Taller players can have a much bigger advantage against shorter players in a ton of sports, so why don’t we use height as a determiner of which league you play in instead?

You know, the Germans had a word for people that voted for Hitler for economic reasons. It was Nazi. It doesn’t matter if you support people that want to forcibly de-transition people because they have a better economic policy.

In the end, if you don’t support human rights, you’re a bad person, and there are so many better people out there to be friends with who won’t disappoint you. And the logic that stems from this thinking is: If someone votes for people who will take away others’ rights… What will they do to me? If they won’t protect others, they won’t protect me. Regardless of if that is true, we can only judge people by their words and actions, and it’s a really easy way to judge.

It isn’t anyone’s duty to be these people’s friends. You can do it, but it’s really obvious why most people wouldn’t. It literally is a privilege to not be angry and threatened by these people. That wasn’t a dismissal of your argument, but a point for you to reflect on.

Once again, do not play the privilege card. Not on me, not on anyone. It’s not a convincing argument, and it has not a real base. And it’s somehow discriminatory towards particular groups that you do not consider “unprivileged enough”.

That is a really weird and illogical argument.

What happens if she ends up being right and in 2 years that party goes into power and do not do anything to hurt me? And I have to live my life knowing I cut a good relationship because something I was wrong about.

That is a really weird and illogical hypothetical. Best answered with, “But what if they kill you instead?”. We ALL have a line in the sand where if someone supports a thing, they cannot be our friend anymore. Like, if my friend started saying Nazi things, but was a “good guy” otherwise, they wouldn’t be a good guy at all. I would give them a chance to not be a Nazi, and then we would either not be friends or they wouldn’t be a Nazi. Everyone has that, regardless of what you say or think, and it is disgustingly easy to prove. I can prove it, if you’d like, but I feel like you have already lost this argument by ignoring the Amanda party.

Don’t play the privilege card on my.

I absolutely will. Because you are ignoring yours. Being a part of a disadvantaged group doesn’t mean you don’t have privilege elsewhere. In fact, sometimes, that is the reason why you might ignore your privilege.

You are able to be calm with your friend because you do not see there is a danger. People like your friend haven’t hurt you. But would everyone else do the same? Your friend supports people that will hurt people like you, but do they think they can stop those people from hurting you?

I would rather lose a friend who didn’t want me hurt but supported people who would hurt me because that is not a logical view, no matter how calmly it is spoken.

it’s not a central theme for either of us, but even when we talk about it we have never argue, just talk differences calmly and with respect, we never insulted each other because politics.

This is a privilege you have that others do not.

If, for whatever reason, you were under the threat of violence every day, do you think you could be calm and rational? If that threatened violence against you hanging over your head was perpetuated by members of a political party, would you be calm and rational about that party? If this was because of something you couldn’t change about yourself, like being queer or black or a woman, would you be calm and rational? Do you think everyone could? Do you think a child could?

I know I couldn’t. I see these people breakdown over and over again. For something they did not choose. Sometimes for not being calm or rational.

It is silly to expect people to act calm and rational in the face of overwhelming prejudice, in the face of threats to your self, family, and friends, in the face of adversity–or worse, ennui–to your situation.

Let me steal an argument from a video I saw. Pretend you are having a party, and someone comes up to you and says that your friend Amanda should be kicked out of the party, that she doesn’t deserve to be here, that she is drinking too much of your beer, and that if she goes, everyone can have more beer. You like Amanda because she is your friend and you know she is kind and funny. Let’s say you calmly and rationally debate this guy, but he adamantly repeats these things, over and over again. Do you think Amanda feels good at this party? Should you keep debating this loser? Or would you kick him out of the party, by force if necessary, because Amanda did nothing wrong? Now imagine this person says this about ALL Amandas. Do you think this changes the situation? What if someone else told you that this guy just really hates Amandas but he’s cool otherwise, even though he really harps on how Amandas are ruining this party. Do you think Amanda likes that second guy? Should Amanda be calm and rational to either of those two people?