comment: >
  
  
  Literally all data supports this 
  
  Literally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. 
  
  The US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA
  
  Only about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. 
  The US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.
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 >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  The entire point on healthcare only works from a UK perspective because it is specific to UK politics. You can't really bring American politics and healthcare into it to argue against that point. Because the answer in America is different. Shocker, I know, different countries require different implementations of public services.
  "advantages aren't unfair and one where they are.
  Left-handed athletes have advantages over right-handed athletes in many sports. It is perhaps most marked in fencing where 40% of elite fencers are left-handed versus 10% of the population is left-handed.
  But right-handed fencers and left-handed fencers can engage in meaningful competition despite the advantages that left-handed fencers have
  "The science is in its infancy and we are not going to have definitive answers for probably 20 years.
  There are some, including the IOC, that have said until we know [more] we shouldn't restrict trans athletes.
  What I would say is that until we know for sure, sport's governing bodies should do the best they can with the data that exists, with the knowledge that we have today, with the understanding that any policy they create now should be subject to change one we get more data.
  So for instance, World Athletics has said that once transgender women reduce testosterone for 12 months, they should be allowed in. That's not a perfect policy - nobody is saying it is - but World Athletics has said this is the best we can do with the available science.
  That I think is a more reasonable approach than either saying there shouldn't be any restrictions on trans women or we shouldn't let trans women in until we know for certain."
  This is pretty much the entire point I was meaning to make with saying "there is no advantage"
  Essentially "there's no meaningful reason to ban trans people from women's sports based on current real world results.
  But your usage of the term dominating women's sports and using an article about Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges proves you to not really be acting in good faith. Neither dominated their events. Lia Thomas performed less than average for prior winners of her event. >
  
  
  They are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.
  
  There's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.  If you know that all of them weren't willing to have those debates with you, it sounds like you're badgering people into having unproductive and pointless debates at a time they'd rather not and perhaps with people with whom they don't want to debate.  That would make you and your manners the problem.
  You're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.
  
  This is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.
  
  When someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: "I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that."
  
  Now, I do admit my bias. I don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, only an explanation for why they hold said position
  
  This tells me that, in the course of any and all debates you've ever had with conservatives, you've never conceded anything.  If someone knows you and knows this about you, why the hell would they waste their time in a debate with you?  Your definition of being open to reasoned debate is other people listening to you and changing their minds.
  Sorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you. >
  
  
  There's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.
  
  I don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. 
  
  When someone points to a whole category of people who believe things they don't and accuses that group of being constitutionally incapable of accepting reason, what I hear is: "I don't make very persuasive arguments, but that shouldn't matter because I'm right and it's their job to recognize that."
  
  I mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority. And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now. The leader of the United States conservative movement in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump, very clearly didn't care much about debating during the debates, and conservatives chose him. >
  
  
  I don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point.
  
  And I was referring to the part where they talked about the post coming from their experiences over the holidays.
  
  I mean, to say that absolutely all conservatives are incapable of reason is obviously ridiculous. But I don't think he's referring to all conservatives, just the vast majority.
  
  That is not as important a distinction as you seem to think it is.
  
  And conservatives, as a population, don't really seem to care much about debate right now.
  
  Someone with the opposite prejudice could say the exact same thing about progressives and be equally wrong.
  What you're telling me is that you're incurious about conservatives, don't know very much about them outside the role they play as your adversary and would rather be comfortable in your assumptions than actually seek out conservative debates. >
  
  
  Someone with the opposite prejudice could say the exact same thing about progressives and be equally wrong.
  
  I don't even think they'd be equally wrong but less so given that cancelling, banning and refusing debate is far from symmetrical between the left and the right at the moment. >
  
  This seems like a you problem. 
  Both examples you gave of disagreements you had seem to indicate are you have an inability to recognize why someone might disagree with you on an issue. This is why you say “Even though no data agrees with their position” which is patently untrue or that they should “leave society” if they don’t agree with you. You seem to be unable to accept that people might not agree with you and instead of trying to understand their positions you seem to simply dismiss them as a matter of course. Then you make sweeping generalizations to try to justify your thinking and behavior.
  In short, you need to look at why you find it difficult to accept others disagreeing with you and why you think it’s acceptable to generalize to justify this position you hold. >
  
  “Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded” >
  
  Maybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate? >
  
  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. >
  
  
  on. Transgender athletes? "Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!" Even though no data agrees with their position
  
  ...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. 
  Literally all data supports this. That is why we issue lifetime bans for athletes having taken synthetic testosterone - steroid use has long term effects. The Q angle in a womans skeletature is also more prone to injury preventing harder training for women for anything where a person is standing upright.
  have you considered  they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.
  
  Privatisation has failed in America
  
  The US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA