Dnd has a simple goal when it comes to building characters; let us play who and what we want to play. Not restricting stat bonuses to races makes it easier to do that than having race restricted bonuses, since we are not punishing people mechanically for picking the "wrong" option.
So, yes, we can determine that the system in Tasha's and One D&D is objectively better. It's not hard to do with such a simple goal.
What makes me (and apparently others) wonder about peoples biases is that they argue against the ruleset giving us more freedom based on their personal preferences when those preferences can still be expressed in the system. You want all elves to have +2 dex, you can give all your elves +2 dex in these rules. You have literally lost nothing except, as Eagle so succinctly pointed out, a 1930s eugenics energy.
Of course, that fantasy races are often inspired by real world groups definitely makes this worse. Did you know that Tolkien's orcs were heavily inspired by what he saw as the worst traits of mongols? He wrote it in one of his many letters. Knowing that and how much Tolkien inspired modern fantasy, saying orcs and half-orcs have to be big, strong and dumb gives some really bad vibes.
Don't you just hate it when people with dumb opinions have nice avatars?
