NBC News99%
How transgender athletes are arguing against state bans before the Supreme Court 82%
5/16/2026, 4:00:23 PM
BS Summary: This video contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Status Quo Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 13.3% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 121 faulty-reasoning hits from 377 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.5% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,094 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 81.60% of the video peer group.
So, I just heard a litany of different ways in which your case, I think, is arguably easier than the case uh for the advocates that are currently arguing in front of the Supreme Court.
But there's also another wrinkle, David, and it's the state bands themselves because the bands don't say trans kids can't play with the girls.
They don't say that at all. They say that you have to play on the teams that correlate with your sex assigned at birth.
Does the fact that they don't discriminate textually against transgender athletes make any difference?
It it may well. I mean, I think that is one that is certainly um the argument that the states are making.
They're saying um you know, we are we are actually not singling out trans people.
What we are doing is defining sports teams by sex, by which we mean sex assigned at birth.
That treats all people whose sex assigned at at birth was male the same.
And it treats all people who sex assigned as female uh the same.
Um and yes, the women's team is different from the men's team, but that difference is permissible because we've had it for 100 years.
But the transgender athletes response is yes, but what's the purpose of that sexbased line?
It's still a sexbased line. And the purpose is fairness and and competitive fairness.
And if I as a person who was assigned male at birth but am now a woman have done everything in my power to eliminate any sex-based advantage that I have.
Well then what is the purpose of excluding me from the women's team?
I I see the purpose of excluding someone who has higher testosterone levels from the women's team, but what's the purpose when I have neutralized those advantages and I actually am in the same position as a woman who was assigned female at birth visav testosterone etc.
That's that's what makes the case hard that if you think of it in the broad sense it makes sense.
If you think about it, when it's applied to someone who has eliminated her sex-based advantages, it doesn't make as much sense.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.