comment: >
  
  You are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.
context: /u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Citing the trans women in sports example just shows your own political bias. Your own video shows that trans women do retain a statistically significant advantage in speed, strength, and endurance, even as long as 2-3 years after transitioning.
  So the question then becomes about fairness. You think sports are inherently unfair, so why worry about transwomen and their inherent strength/speed/endurance advantages? Well, should we unban performance enhancing drugs? If not, why not? Transwomen are essentially women who have been taking PEDs for the first 2 decades or their lives and then stopping and acting like the should be able to compete on a level playing field. Should we make that the rules for everyone? It doesn't matter if you've failed 100 PED tests, as long as you test clean for a year before the event?
  If you really don't see the difference between not being able to control for random genetic outliers and systematically allowing an entire group of athletes that are known to have specific physical advantages, then you are just being willfully obtuse. Even the Olympic committee has ruled that AFAB women with abnormally high testosterone levels are banned from competing in women's events.
  Now whether we should throw out the sense of fairness in order to be more inclusive for trans women (and only for trans women), that's a real discussion that is probably worth having. However, I doubt you are willing to have that discussion any more than your family is, because you believe you are just objectively on the right side of morality, just like they do. >
  
  True and that debate is even more difficult than others because first they would have to successfully argue that transwomen are women (otherwise why even consider letting them compete with women), and then would have to convince their opponents that their male strength advantage shouldn't be taken into consideration as eligibility for competing. >
  
  It’s not that difficult. Sports are a privilege, not a right. If a biological condition makes you ineligible for sports, too bad. You don’t get to play competitive sports >
  
  
  don't care about reasoned debate 
  This came about after interacting with my family over the holidays
  This is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.
  
  You have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. 
  
  It truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, 
  
  Politics is literally that, no? You should see this post on dataisbeautiful (I think). It shows coverage of liberal vs. Conservative news outlets. The confirmation bias is real. The left doesn't care about the ftx scandal because leftists are entrenched in it, while the right doesn't care about say, converting dumb things trump does. 
  
  even if it is an objectively bad idea.
  
  I'm not sure what cases you're referencing to say 'objectively bad idea' but I'd be willing to bet there is far more nuance than you're giving credit for. 
  
  Healthcare? "Privatise it!" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.
  
  Do you live in America? Judging by your use of 's' vs 'z' i'd say no. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's not perfect anywhere. The system works fine. The people IN it sucks. We are fat as hell, while pushing for fat acceptance (largely leftists I might add...). I'm a bit out of my league in terms of understanding, but my bills are more than fair, and I can get scheduled for surgery much quicker. My cousin in Canada has been waiting for a hip replacement surgery for a decade in Canada, and covid only made it worse. I can get one done in weeks if I time it right. 
  
  Transgender athletes? "Ban them.
  
  I don't see anyone saying this. But, many are saying you shouldn't be able to swim in the woman's division if you have a penis, regardless of if you're on hormones or not. Many women are frustrated that a guy can be 'on testosterone ' for 23 years, swap out hormones for a year, then break college records in women's divisions and become 'woman of the year'. 
  
  I also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.
  
  This seems like a pretty big bias without fully understanding the nuance of what people are arguing. The vocal minority is not representative of the whole for any side, conservative or liberal. >
  
  Lia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky) >
  
  She set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.
  According to the voice (not the show) she broke 6 records. And the following were the tweets from penn swimming and diving about 3 of her times. 
  Lia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.
  Lia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.
  Lia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.
  Your argument is built upon demonstrably false claims that could be proven wrong with a 4 second google search. Now it makes perfect sense why you think half the political spectrum cant stand logic or reason. >
  
  The main problem with political "debate" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. 
  If you want to change someone's mind, you can't be arguing from your own perspective. You have to start from theirs, and build from premises that they accept. If you start with your own, they disagree with the core foundations of your argument. And no matter how well reasoned and logical your arguments are, the structure you build has nothing to stand on. From their perspective, at least.
  This makes argument difficult, because their foundational views are theirs, not yours. You don't know where to start from, and have to puzzle it out on your own. Or ask, I guess. But either way, most people don't do that. On either side of the spectrum. And as a result, no one ever seems to change their mind.
  If you want to get through to someone, you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. Not framing it as trying to change their mind, but trying to understand each other. And that is pretty much impossible on social media. Trolls and karma whores abound.
  In person, though? It's actually pretty easy a lot of the time. You focus on shared goals like economic security and government corruption, and then ask everyone to step back from political platforms. Make your case through a sort of Socratic method, asking them leading questions and exploring their answers until they come to a conclusion "on their own." And only then bring it back to politics, aligning their ideas with policy proposals.
  But again, for it to work you need to be in a position to have an earnest conversation. And that requires a personal connection and a willingness to set aside your own political affiliation (at least at the start). Most people don't argue that way, and so most people fail to change minds. >
  
  
  Transgender athletes? "Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!" Even though no data agrees with their position.
  
  Yes there are, please check out these two papers:
  
  
  Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021
  
  
  How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation, Harper et al, BMJ, 2021
  
  
  Both conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. 
  Note that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman. >
  
  A reasoned debate is one that is done on merit and without insults. What you are saying is not accurate, and is not even close to accurate across a wide cross section of conservatives. Some? Yeah, there are emotional sorts in every part of the political spectrum. There are certainly lefties who qualify for this, just swing over to capitalism vs socialism for a bit.
  But all of them? That isn’t the case at all.
  Look at the bias in your own post, the reality is that biological males do tend to have an advantage. We are in general bigger and stronger, and that makes a difference in competitive sports. Ban them? Nobody is saying ban them, or at least few are, they tend to suggest they should be competing against the proper group of athletes. We have gender, age and weight class separation for a reason.
  You might like the NHS, but in the USA we want nothing of the sort. That doesn’t mean we aren’t able to debate it, this post suggests -you- do not want to debate it. >
  
  Clearly you are misinformed.
  Our current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.
  The NHS is objectively cheaper and a better idea for the UK and bringing up America in this instance is bad faith acting because clearly that is a bad idea for the country we are speaking about. Not everyone is American. Not everywhere needs American politics. >
  
  Again, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.
  You are just objectively wrong on this. Every longitudinal study on trans athlete performance shows that trans women retain muscle mass and strength beyond their cis counterparts years after transitioning.
  Every study that shows otherwise was preformed by a trans activist or paid for a trans activist group, and the single more cited meta-analysis that the Olympic committee used contains only 1 study about trans athlete performance and that study has a sample size of 1.
  The actual objective peer-reviewed data is completely conclusive: trans women retain a statistically significant percentage of the strength/speed/endurance advantage they have over cis women, even 2-3 years after transitioning. >
  
  Did you?
  You're interpreting a vague concept in its best possible faith rather than discussing what method of cost saving is popular. It's like polling EU resentment vs which post-brexit model. 
  Singapore is "cheaper" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization. >
  
  Bad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. 
  Most people on the planet don't have a view on which of an array of financing mechanisms will produce maximally beneficial and cost effective results in their national healthcare system. 
  The OP's stated belief was that conservatives have no reasonable basis for their policy positions - proving that reasonable conservative policies exist should challenge the belief >
  
  If reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. 
  But the reasonable policy, which is not conservative as framed, is not what conservatives are seeking. UK cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills. USA cons are not seeking Singapore similar bills.
  They present Singapore as "conservative works" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.