Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nUnless you are spitting it out constantly technically you are drinking unsweetened saliva all-day. Mixed with the mucus and phlegm you don't spit out, is about 1.5 liters a day.", ">\n\nIve been dipping worthers originals since high school (about 17 years). I average about 700-1200mls in my mud jug per day." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nUnless you are spitting it out constantly technically you are drinking unsweetened saliva all-day. Mixed with the mucus and phlegm you don't spit out, is about 1.5 liters a day.", ">\n\nIve been dipping worthers originals since high school (about 17 years). I average about 700-1200mls in my mud jug per day.", ">\n\nhard or chewy?" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nUnless you are spitting it out constantly technically you are drinking unsweetened saliva all-day. Mixed with the mucus and phlegm you don't spit out, is about 1.5 liters a day.", ">\n\nIve been dipping worthers originals since high school (about 17 years). I average about 700-1200mls in my mud jug per day.", ">\n\nhard or chewy?", ">\n\nI chew lollipops so I’m just getting a little saliva and a lot of candy." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nUnless you are spitting it out constantly technically you are drinking unsweetened saliva all-day. Mixed with the mucus and phlegm you don't spit out, is about 1.5 liters a day.", ">\n\nIve been dipping worthers originals since high school (about 17 years). I average about 700-1200mls in my mud jug per day.", ">\n\nhard or chewy?", ">\n\nI chew lollipops so I’m just getting a little saliva and a lot of candy.", ">\n\nOohh and there were those lollipops that have gum inside." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nUnless you are spitting it out constantly technically you are drinking unsweetened saliva all-day. Mixed with the mucus and phlegm you don't spit out, is about 1.5 liters a day.", ">\n\nIve been dipping worthers originals since high school (about 17 years). I average about 700-1200mls in my mud jug per day.", ">\n\nhard or chewy?", ">\n\nI chew lollipops so I’m just getting a little saliva and a lot of candy.", ">\n\nOohh and there were those lollipops that have gum inside.", ">\n\neverything you eat and drink comes with a side of saliva. mm-mmm spit." ]

[]

[ "Slamming on a machine is way different than dropping barbells in a designated zone." ]

[ "Slamming on a machine is way different than dropping barbells in a designated zone.", ">\n\nYou ever just consider they drop it because it’s heavy? Not every person going to the gym is trying to display their strength. Stop assuming peoples intentions." ]

[ "Slamming on a machine is way different than dropping barbells in a designated zone.", ">\n\nYou ever just consider they drop it because it’s heavy? Not every person going to the gym is trying to display their strength. Stop assuming peoples intentions.", ">\n\nIf they have to drop it then its too heavy for them. If they cant properly finish their set in a controlled manner, i doubt they used proper form to begin with." ]

[ "Slamming on a machine is way different than dropping barbells in a designated zone.", ">\n\nYou ever just consider they drop it because it’s heavy? Not every person going to the gym is trying to display their strength. Stop assuming peoples intentions.", ">\n\nIf they have to drop it then its too heavy for them. If they cant properly finish their set in a controlled manner, i doubt they used proper form to begin with.", ">\n\nNope. You can lift with proper form until failure, and then have to drop or put down the weights because your grip is taxed or your too fatigued to gently put the weights down. \nI'm not an advocate of throwing or slamming weights l, but if you work hard enough, it's sometimes necessary to have to ditch the dumbbells after a intense set" ]

[ "Slamming on a machine is way different than dropping barbells in a designated zone.", ">\n\nYou ever just consider they drop it because it’s heavy? Not every person going to the gym is trying to display their strength. Stop assuming peoples intentions.", ">\n\nIf they have to drop it then its too heavy for them. If they cant properly finish their set in a controlled manner, i doubt they used proper form to begin with.", ">\n\nNope. You can lift with proper form until failure, and then have to drop or put down the weights because your grip is taxed or your too fatigued to gently put the weights down. \nI'm not an advocate of throwing or slamming weights l, but if you work hard enough, it's sometimes necessary to have to ditch the dumbbells after a intense set", ">\n\nThats a fair point tbh" ]

[]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al)." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough)." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this" ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.", ">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.", ">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.", ">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.", ">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.", ">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.", ">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.", ">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.", ">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.", ">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.", ">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.", ">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.", ">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.", ">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.", ">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.", ">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.", ">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.", ">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.", ">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.", ">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.", ">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.", ">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position." ]

[ "/u/AnEnbyHasAppeared (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nCiting 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.\nSo 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?\nIf 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.\nNow 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.", ">\n\nTrue 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.", ">\n\nIt’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", ">\n\n\ndon't care about reasoned debate \nThis came about after interacting with my family over the holidays\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nYou have some sampling bias if your engagement is online, or your family. \n\nIt truly feels like they only care about how politics affects them and their predetermined biases/feelings, \n\nPolitics 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. \n\neven if it is an objectively bad idea.\n\nI'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. \n\nHealthcare? \"Privatise it!\" But why? It only sucks because the Tories have underfunded it. Privatisation has failed in America.\n\nDo 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. \n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them.\n\nI 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'. \n\nI also do believe conservatism is a net negative on society based on their positions.\n\nThis 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.", ">\n\nLia Thomas didn't break any record. Or are you forgetting the ciswoman who still holds the record (Ledecky)", ">\n\nShe set an ivy record of 1 minute 43.12 seconds according to cnn.\nAccording 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. \nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague champion in the 500 free. Her time of 4:37.32 is a new pool record.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 200 free with a meet and pool record time of 1:43.12.\nLia Thomas is the @IvyLeague Champion in the 100 free with a meet, pool and program record time of 47.63.\nYour 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.", ">\n\nThe main problem with political \"debate\" is that each side has firmly held conclusions and gets tunnel vision when arguing about them. \nIf 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.\nThis 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.\nIf 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.\nIn 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.\nBut 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.", ">\n\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position.\n\nYes there are, please check out these two papers:\n\n\nTransgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, Hilton & Lundberg, Sports Medicine, 2021\n\n\nHow 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\n\n\nBoth conclude that when transwomen suppress testosterone, loss of muscle mass and strength is small, and strength advantage over females is retained. \nNote that Harper, the first author of the second paper, is a transwoman.", ">\n\nA 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.\nBut all of them? That isn’t the case at all.\nLook 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.\nYou 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.", ">\n\nClearly you are misinformed.\nOur current data suggest trans people have no advantage (and in some cases a disadvantage) against cis individuals.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nAgain, please watch the video that you posted as evidence. That video contradicts what you are actually saying here.\nYou 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.\nEvery 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.\nThe 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.", ">\n\nDid you?\nYou'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. \nSingapore is \"cheaper\" but keeps much of public mandates that wouldn't exist under privatization.", ">\n\nBad faith presumptions about what conservatives mean by 'privatisation' are designed to prevent finding points of agreement and paths forward. \nMost 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. \nThe 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", ">\n\nIf reasonable conservative policies exist, then yes. \nBut 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.\nThey present Singapore as \"conservative works\" then cut budgets, staffing, and service liability in conflict with that model.", ">\n\nYou are conflating conservatives generally with a specific government. The post isn't about the conservative party, it's about conservative people.", ">\n\nAll the above, and the polls you list don't demonstrate otherwise. \nI have to say this again, but Singapore is not what happens when you privatize us/uk healthcare. It's not the direction the politicians are going, it's not what's being campaigned on, and it's not what the polls are looking at.", ">\n\nYou're not citing any claims you are making, why should anyone take your opinion as a statement of fact?", ">\n\nCite that something doesn't exist? That's not how it works. \nI described Singapore model to you. The conservative ideas are not that.", ">\n\nThis seems like a you problem. \nBoth 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.\nIn 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.", ">\n\n“Debating means that either they agree with me or they are ignorant and close minded”", ">\n\nMaybe just dont talk about political issues with those whose views you cannot change? Why does a family dinner have to be a debate?", ">\n\nClearly you've never met my parents.\nMy father's motto is \"politics should be free reign to bring up because everything is political anyways\"", ">\n\nJust a thought, but maybe most people don't try and discuss their opinions and have a rational debate with you because you don't come across as someone open to the debate. Your post is presenting your opinions as facts. You believe you are right, and they are wrong, and that's the end of it. Which is your right to feel that way, but if you present yourself in that mold, who would every try and debate you? If someone else approached you with that attitude, would you bother debating with them? \nPeople on both sides are open to debate people who are willing to be open minded and listen to new ideas. Trying to debate a close minded zealot is just a frustrating experience for both sides, which is why people don't do it\nSo perhaps the reason you think \"Conservatives don't actually care about reasoned debate and interacting with them is pointless\" is because your tone, presentation, and attitude come across as someone they see no point in debating with, so they don't even try", ">\n\n\nThey are, for all their faults, very capable of proper reasoning. Yet on any political issue they show zero willingness to engage in reasoned debate.\n\nThere'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.\nYou're not owed a debate with everyone you disagree with.\n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person.\n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nNow, 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\n\nThis 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.\nSorry to say, but it looks like you're describing how others probably see you.", ">\n\n\nThere's a fairly obvious part you left off: they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nI don't think he was referring to that. He specifically talks about online conservatives at one point. \n\nWhen 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.\"\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nI might be in the minority, but I wouldn’t describe Trump as a conservative. \nI’d describe him as a populist. There’s a lot of factions in the Republican Party, populism and and political conservatism being two branches. Two other branches might be the religiously conservative (which can overlap with the politically conservative but is not exactly the same thing), and the neo-conservative movements (Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Bush et al).", ">\n\nI mean, this is part of the problem of discussing things with conservatives. There's this dogmatic connection to using the perfect labels and it's always done in such a way so that no one bad is definitionally a conservative or a true Republican or something. \nTrump was chosen by the conservative party, he was supported by conservatives, most conservatives voted with him the majority of the time etc. He's conservative.", ">\n\nWell, it’s a distinction that I think is important. \nSome in the Republican Party voted trump in the general because he wasn’t Hillary, but that doesn’t make populists conservatives, nor does it make conservatives populists. Voting for a candidate in our 2 party system, especially in the generals, doesn’t mean you support everything they say or do. \nAnd if the shoe were on the other foot, I’d say the same thing about the Democratic Party. There’s communists who vote democrat because Biden was better than Trump, but that doesn’t mean they believe everything the average democrat believes because even democrats are not homogeneous. Imo, If you’re (generic you, not specifically you, but people in general) going to argue politics, you should focus on the actual principles, one at a time, rather than individual candidates or presidents. \nBecause there’s no way Biden or trump perfectly encapsulate the ideological point of views of any one democrat or republican.\nEdit for clarification: I’m trying to ultimately help you bridge the gap with your “conservative” counterparts by pointing out the different factions which operate on different first principles. \nIf you actually understand who trump is and what his followers believe in (populism), it’ll go a long way to having a fruitful discussion, or even determining if a fruitful discussion is even possible. \nIt was a bit unfortunate that your response to mine sounded a lot like pidgeon holing all “conservatives” into being the same faction that all believe the same thing, and then saying they were to blame for the inability to have fruitful discussion, because pidgeon holing is literally one of the tried and true ways to disingenuously using logical fallacies to “win the debate”.", ">\n\nOP, you should read about the differences between utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. That'll help you understand more about conservatives than any reply here.\nRight-leaning people tend to be deontological thinkers. When you have a conversation like this:\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America. It's a bad, expensive idea that will cost us more money than the NHS.\n\nThe thought pattern of a conservative is: So what if it costs more money than the NHS?\nThat question probably short-circuits your brain. But the original point of 'it's bad because it will cost us more' does the same thing to a conservative brain.\nYou're worried about outcomes. Conservatives are worried about how we get to the outcomes.\nTaxes are ultimately taken under the threat of consequences imposed by the government. This works for society for the most part, but is admittedly a flawed and often dubious process. You see the broadly positive consequences of taxation, conservatives see the broadly bent morality of the tax system at work; the ultimate necessary evil.\nYou can come up with all sorts of arguments like \"well just leave society then\" in response to the practical application of these moral ideas, but the ideas themselves are both morally and logically consistent. To a conservative, your worldview is one of 'the ends justify the means'.\nUltimately, conversations with the other side (politically) are extremely difficult because, usually, you need to reduce the arguments to their most bare of components to work.", ">\n\nit's not solely bad bc it costs more it's also factually worse than 37 other countries which all have universal care.\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\nnot only is it less expensive but it's a system which can be made better if you cut out the private vampires who profit off of the whole thing", ">\n\n\nthe usa and cuba tie for healthcare rankings basically. think about this; if you think the US healthcare system is so great then cubans are getting it universally.\n\nActually, there is a third option and one most likely to be true.\nIf your rankings of the US and Cuban healthcare systems are the same, perhaps your ranking criteria is flawed? \nBecause honestly, anytime I read of a single breakdown claiming something is better or worse with respect to healthcare, I already know it is flawed idea.\nThe healthcare systems in the US and Cuba are vastly different. There is little doubt that in the US, with money, you have access to the very best the world has to offer. The US problem is not quality, it is distribution. The same comment cannot be said for Cuba.", ">\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's", ">\n\n\nits not my ranking criteria it's the world health organization's\n\nYep - and my point still stands. It is a flawed metric. Ive actually read its methodology and there is a huge bias towards universal availability. This is why the US scores low - the cost factor. \nThe US has a very binomial distribution in healthcare. If you have money/good insurance the metrics show world class healthcare. The challenge hits when you don't have money or insurance to pay for things. \nNone of this is reflected in their rankings. It is a composite instead.\nBecause ask yourself a simple question. If you are moderately wealthy and can afford good healthcare - and you have cancer - where do you want to get your medical treatment? Do you want the socialized medical centers or the Mayo Clinic?", ">\n\n...because universal availability is an extremely important aspect of how it would be ranked. you can have the opinion that it shouldn't be that way but to claim it's flawed is a little much imo", ">\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.", ">\n\n\nIf a healthcare system is only able to provide high quality care to a select few and neglects the rest of the population to low quality care, I would call that a poor healthcare system overall.\n\nExcept that your characterization is wrong.\nIt provides very high quality care to most and generally very good care to the rest. The hate comes from the costs. But nobody is turned away at hospitals. \nThat is why I consider that metric flawed to describe the quality of healthcare.\nYou don't have to agree - just realize using that metric as a claim is not as strong an argument as you would like.", ">\n\nTransgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\nwell there is your problem =)\nyou are way to sure about your own opinions.\nis it possible for them to persuade you about anything?\nwhy do you expect it to be different the other way around?", ">\n\nNo. On that point it is not unless future data shows they are right. No data shows they are right. It's not \"being too sure\" of my own position it's \"no data agrees with them, and tends to show the opposite\"", ">\n\nIs your position that a male athlete who ranks say 1000th in the world in a particular event would upon transition and a suitable waiting period place similarly among female peers, or simply that her performance would be degraded from her previous performances?\nIf she were instead to place top 50, would that be an issue to you?\nWhat if the top male athlete in the world transitioned and while she didn't set times which were comparable to her previous performances, she still set world records which no female will ever reach. Should those times be accepted as a woman's world record?", ">\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this, as does the scientific data we have currently.", ">\n\n\nIt is that a trans athlete would, in general, perform at their prior placement. Lia Thomas seems to confirm this,\n\nLia Thomas' transition moved her from 554th to 5th in the 200 freestyle, 65th to 1st in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd to 8th in the 1650 freestyle. She was ranked 89th among male swimmers in 2018-2019 and ranked 46th among female swimmers in 2021-2022.\nThis seems to indicate that while she did experience a significant degredation in her prior performances due to hormonal treatment, the degradation didn't actually comparably place her to female peers, and that some male advantage remained. She didn't completely curbstomp her female competition, but certainly did rise in the rankings.\n​\n\nas does the scientific data we have currently.\n\nSome of the scientific data we have currently:\n\nIn transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy. source\n\n​\n\nThe 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events. source\n\n​\n\nWe have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant. source (note: study subjects were untrained transgender women and not athletes)\n\n​\n\nCPC in non-athlete TW showed an intermediate pattern between that in CW and CM. The mean strength and VO2 peak in non-athlete TW while performing physical exertion were higher than those in non-athlete CW and lower than those in CM. source", ">\n\nYou think he'll reply to this? I'm picking up on \"I don't actually care about the truth, I just want to have an opinion about shit I know nothing about\" which, while super common, is also super fucking cringe.", ">\n\nOp has had multiple people provide similar studies, including some of the same studies, and won't directly engage with them. I even directly asked them if they were willing to admit that their position that there was no data supporting trans women having a retained advantage was incorrect and they didn't respond.", ">\n\nWhat is your definition of \"conservative\"?", ">\n\nSomeone who is political right leaning.", ">\n\nThat definition doesn't help much.", ">\n\n\nNow my family is highly educated. Both my parents have doctorate degrees, my siblings all went to Oxbridge or American Ivy League schools. 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.\n\nI couldn't change their view on any issues, so they must lack the ability to reason!\n\nBan them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\nCmon now... The easiest dunk for this argument is looking at skeletal structure in men vs woman. Lets try swimming (seems to be meta), testosterone aside (which is a HUGE advantage), wide shoulders/long arms and torso that comes innate to men is a massive advantage.\n\nThen leave society.\n\nTell me you are intolerant without telling me you are intolerant.\n\nI don't think any conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions.\n\nMore ignorance. If you are ever interested in the rationalization of a conservative argument, there is a plethora of that can be easily found across the internet. Just because you haven't taken a single effort to educate yourself on specific topics is not the fault of conservatives.", ">\n\nIf your answer for why you want to privatise healthcare is you don't want to pay for public services than you should leave society. Because that's the only reasonable method for not paying for public services.\nIf you wish to be a contributing member of society part of that Social Contract is that in return for the benefits of society (relative safety from natural selection, ease of access to resources, human connection, etc) you pay it forward for those who are at the bottom. It's part of being a functioning society that we try to with towards the betterment of the whole not the individual.\n\"If a society cannot protect the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich\"", ">\n\nThat's a declaration. None of your \"argument\" follows logically, it is purely your assumptions. You didn't reason into your position. Why are you blaming them when they don't reason into theirs?", ">\n\nIf you want to debate conservatives you should understand their positions first. No one wants to debate with you if you argue against something they either don't believe or is irrelevant to their beliefs. \n\nThis is a trend I've seen amongst other conservatives online and in person. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\"\n\nConservatives believe women are adult human females, not something based on self-identification. It doesn't matter if a male is or isn't really good at his sport, a male shouldn't compete in female sports. You arguing about the advantages of being male misses the point. You disagree with conservatives on what a woman is. \nSo a starting point of that debate wouldn't be here \"here is a ton of data on male's performance in female sports.\" The starting point should be you explain what you think a woman is and then hear what they say.", ">\n\nThat would leave only conservatives talking about post transition performance, because when we debate what a woman is that conversation doesn't get settled either.", ">\n\nYour post screams \"conservatives disagree with me so they dont make sense or care about having a conversation that only enlightens my views.\" \nI think I am right to assume that your family brings facts but you get caught up in your \"caring about others\" mentality so youre to focus on how to stand up for people you deem victims rather then listen to facts. That or your family is tired of trying to have talks with you so they be vague with you to keep the peace.", ">\n\nWell seeing as you're just wrong on both points here: my parents are the ones who bring up politics. Not I.\nAnd yes, my parents only really care about the Tories because \"they keep the poor subservient!\"\nThese are objectively piss poor views for society that should not be accepted. Society, as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole.\nIn fact, it is actively harmful to society and will eventually lead to societal revolt if pushed too far.... hope I don't have to point to any famous examples of that one (cough, Russia, cough).", ">\n\nSo as you put it \"Society as a rule, is not there to serve the individual but the whole\" wouldnt it make more sense to stop listening to woke leftist who are \"fighting\" for minorities and instead listen to the white majority? Or is that against your victim narrative?\n​\nSo the transgender issue you brought up would be fighting for the individual rather then the whole of society. See the irony?", ">\n\nThe white majority isn't a majority though. They're a plurality\nThe fact individuals benefit from collective good is not the own you think it is (and is massively misinterpreting my argument, likely on purpose)", ">\n\nThe white majority isn’t a majority? If you wanna talk about facts how can you ignore in America the majority of citizens are white. 😂 I see how you argue with your family so much with that awful logic.", ">\n\nHonestly, this is not a \"conservatives\" issue, and is a \"everyone in certain situations\" issue. Sometimes, you just hold a deeply held belief that can't be challenged, and it's important to learn what those are.\nI've been debating trans stuff too much today, so I'll look at the healthcare example. You say they should leave society, but is that any better of a reasoned debate than their point of view of \"I don't want my money to help fund other people\"?\nIf you don't think ANY conservative has ever provided a convincing reason for their policy positions, that's laughably false, and I think you know that. In the US, the Obama-Care idea was originally created by a right-wing think tank. While they later didn't want it implemented on a national scale, do you disagree they had logic when they came up with it?", ">\n\nJust a side note, if people didn't go into a debate or argument thinking the other person's views are evil or that the other has ill intent things would go a lot better.\nNot saying no view or person is evil. But you can't label all conservatives or all liberals bad because there are bad eggs or just because you disagree with them.", ">\n\nI think this is getting closer to the core of the issue, people don't come to the debate with an open mind and a willingness to learn, it is always a rush to the extreme, that side is evil and everything they do is wrong so there's literally no middle ground to meet on. Some issues are more difficult to find middle ground on than others, like, is abortion murder? Both sides have a right to argue their point of view and it is difficult to find common ground on that one. It is still better to say the issue is a difficult one rather than demonize the other side.\nThe left says, you won't let me have an abortion and then demonize me if I want financial help to raise the baby. The right says, you want your body your choice, but don't give me a choice on the taxes I pay for all the benefits you get.", ">\n\nYour argument is going to fail from painting too broad of a brush. You're applying experience with your family to nearly half of the entire population.\nOf course you'll find that there are some who don't want to debate specific closely-held topics. That's true of any human about any closely-held topic, no matter their political position. But to say that half of the entire population doesn't care for reasoned debate should be obviously false to you after a few moments of considering what that truly means.", ">\n\nExcept this phenomenon has been observed amongst every conservative I've interacted with", ">\n\nAnd that is a statistically minuscule sample that’s subject to your own whims and judgment. It’s hard for us to judge how reasoned someone is on a topic where we admittedly believe they’re dead wrong. It should be apparent to you that you’re more likely to call someone reasoned who agrees with you than disagrees with you.\nExtrapolating a conclusion onto half the population based on personal judgment on a topic where you know you’re biased is a dangerous game. You’re likely to end up very wrong.", ">\n\nYes it is a small sample. But it's the only sample I have to work from.", ">\n\nI've explained a couple of times why you should be suspicious about your conclusions from that small sample. Any thoughts on the meat of my response?", ">\n\n\nPot meet kettle. This post reeks of the exact same predetermined biases/feelings you claim the opposite side has. The fact that you can't even pretend to understand the opposite position from the one you hold makes you just as ignorant as those you are stating don't care about reason or debate.\nI think it's also completely overstated to say that all conservatives don't care about reason or debate. As of a Gallup poll in 2020, 36% of people identified as conservative (in contrast 25% as liberal). That is a giant number of people to assume all have the same rigid thinking you are assuming they do.\nIf you can say \"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,\" then I don't think you have ever actually sought out to understand conservative policy positions, and like #1 above, makes you just as at fault, if not more so, than those are you ascribing blame to.", ">\n\nBelow is a copy of one of my replies to another poster. tldr; All evidence points to Republicans being incredibly intolerant of facts in a way that no other group in the US is (except extreme minorities like cults).\n\nOkay, but Republicans do this with every argument. \"Joe Biden increased gas prices by stopping that pipeline!\" My sources from the oil industry say that didn't affect prices. Also, is Biden responsible for gas prices falling back down, too? \nCovid vaccines have been shown to be massively successful. There is no evidence to the contrary. Yet many Republicans still argue against their use. \nOil is far worse for the environment than Lithium mines. There is a huge study done every few years by industry experts on what really is better for the environment. All the green energies topped the list, far surpassing oil and even gas. Yet Republicans still act like EV are bad for the environment. They also act like windmills kill so many birds as to be bad for the environment but fail to acknowledge the effect of cats which is 10,000 times worse for birds. \nI have yet to see one single argument that Republicans actually sided with the facts on. OP mentioned two debates but there are many, and Republicans I've interacted with, online and otherwise, run from the facts like they're a plague.\n\nAlso, just a reminder that on average Republicans are less educated. There is no debating this, it's scientific fact. It's worth considering that the group which is less educated on average also has less reasoned arguments.", ">\n\nIf you think the solution to people with opposing viewpoints is not interacting with them at all, that would make you far more unreasonable than most conservatives I’ve ever met.", ">\n\n\non. Transgender athletes? \"Ban them. They have an advantage. Testosterone advantage. Biological males!\" Even though no data agrees with their position\n\n...bone density, height, higher center of gravity for a given body size. \nLiterally 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.\nhave you considered they're not willing to do it with you, over the holidays.\n\nPrivatisation has failed in America\n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA", ">\n\n\nLiterally all data supports this \n\nLiterally all data shows that trans women who have been on hormone therapy for a few years have no advantage. \n\nThe US spends 5 trillion tax dollars a year on healthcare, it is literally the least privatized industry in the USA\n\nOnly about 1.4 trillion in tax dollars. The rest is private spending. \nThe US always has to do things the absolute worst way possible.", ">\n\nSays “literally all data shows…”\n… shows none of the data", ">\n\n\nYou said all data. This article is about one study in 2015…\nThe study is only concerned with long distance running.\nHer study only included “a few transgender women…”\nShe’s not a scientist and has a master’s degree “Harper may not have the traditional pedigree of a scientist, Vilain says, but \"her approach is highly respected.\" \n\nDid you just Google “articles that say transgender athletes have no advantages” and just search until you found one?\nIn what world is this commensurate with “all the data shows transgender athletes have no persisting advantages”", ">\n\nPeople can be stubborn, especially when they've convinced themselves they are right about something. Conservative or liberal, it's a human characteristic.", ">\n\ni don't think that many people care about reasoned debate. people don't like to be proven wrong, and they often times will just not accept when they are proven to be wrong. also, political debate often boils down to interests and values, and those things can't really be \"debated\". those interests and values will make people look at the same things in totally different lights, and assume different things about different situations. \ni think that just as often as conservatives are guilty of these things, so are liberals and leftists. liberals and leftists also have the benefit of seeming to have \"established\" media and academia on their side, i'd argue. which helps their case for other liberals and some leftists, but hurts their case for conservatives and other leftists. \ni don't think education has much to do with it. education might give you the tools to debate, but it doesn't make you an open minded person. you have to value the genuine possibility that you might be wrong for that.", ">\n\nDo you really think trans women fighters should be able to compete against ciswomen in combat sports like MMA?", ">\n\nThis is absolutely a people thing and not a conservative thing. I say that as a leftist.", ">\n\nBoth sides do this", ">\n\nThere’s a good chance you’re the one who doesn’t care about reasoned debate and just can’t see your own bias.\nOn an individual level, sure, there are plenty of conservatives who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also plenty of liberals who just want to whine and point fingers. There’s also some conservatives and liberals who are data-driven. It’s hard to find nowadays, partly because there’s so many people (maybe yourself included) who want to shut out the other side and categorize them as evil troublemakers who just won’t listen to reason.", ">\n\nThere are several examples of trans women stomping the completion after their transition. All you have to do is google that. Other points aside, watching a YouTube video that cherry picks examples does not make you informed on a topic.", ">\n\nYou sound exactly like what you are blaming others of.", ">\n\nConservatives feel the same as you do. Reading your post it comes across as you doing the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Most people liberal or conservative don't want to debate or argue, they just want to live their lives. I've noticed more often than not it's leftists that want to argue and that just makes moderates and conservatives shut down, NOBODY ever wins in these debates because it just causes both sides to become more entrenched in their views.", ">\n\nConservatives get mad when you push them to explain their reasoning for why they feel a certain way. What debate? They walk away at the most gentle prodding lmao.", ">\n\nFar too often that prodding to explain why they feel X about Y is just a pretense to then imply they are terrible person/Nazi/racist/etc. And this goes the other direction with socialist/commie/etc.", ">\n\nThat's a bit extreme, don't you think? It's an ego thing, and no one wants to be told they're being racist/bigoted/phobic. Doesn't change the reality if you are indeed being racist.", ">\n\nI mean it's not like it happens 100% of the time. I'm just basing it off of my experiences.\nI tend to lean libertarian in a lot of things. If someone politically considered progressive prods me for why I think affirmative action, social security, etc should be done away with, often enough it is just so they can reply that I don't care about old people/minorities/poor people so I'm a bad person.", ">\n\nThey're not itching to call you a racist or a bigot or a bad person for no reason. They are prodding you to FIND OUT if you are a bigot based on your own words. If you fail that test, well, that's a you problem.", ">\n\nIt's for a reason, and in too many instances that reason is that I disagree with them on policy. Its prodding in bad faith to try and find some gotcha personal attack. It's literally just arguing against a person and not a position.", ">\n\n\nThen leave society. \n\nIf you actually think this is a reasonable position to have, you are the problem." ]