news

If there's no clear scientific consensus, then why in fuck's sake could you possibly justify a sports ban? You could actually be a child molesting pedophile. I have no evidence for or against this claim. But I better call the cops on you just in case!

You're demanding someone prove a negative. That is not how proof works. You can scientifically proof Bigfoot exists. Find a Bigfoot corpse? Call in some scientists and they'll document it, analyze it, read its DNA, and scientifically prove with a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot exists. In contrast, it's impossible to prove that Bigfoot does not exist. There could always be some hidden cave or remote mountain valley somewhere where, against all odds, there actually is a population of large non-human primates living on the North American continent. I can prove Bigfoot exists. I cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. That is simply the nature of logic and proof.

You're approaching this from a flawed premise. You're effectively saying, "I will accept trans women in women's sports when you conclusively prove they have no advantage whatsoever." But that's demanding proof of a negative. It is possible to prove an advantage. It is not possible to prove the non-existence of an advantage. Rather, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Since all secondary sex characteristics, including differences in musculature, come from lifetime hormone exposure, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Even men growing larger than women is because of hormone exposure at different periods in life. So if you switch someone's hormones, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. And basic humanity dignity and respect for human beings demands that you start by assuming a position of equality.

The burden of proof is on those demanding we strip people of their liberty and dignity. The burden of proof is on those who would do real tangible harm to a group of people. Remember, these are lives we're talking about. You're arguing a hypothetical, but we're talking about real human beings. And we know that trans women athletes will be harmed by being excluded from women's sports. They certainly can't meaningfully compete against cis male athletes. By excluding trans women from women's sports, you are making it so trans women cannot compete in any competitive sport at all. That's an entire realm of the human experience you're cutting them out from.

If it can be proven that some overwhelming advantage exists, sure. On a sport-by-sport basis, perhaps bans would be justifiable. But you need to actually prove real harm before you start taking people's civil rights away. You are demanding proof that no advantage exists. You should be starting by demanding those who would take away civil rights present a rigorous case and actually prove real harm.