Instigator
Points: 6

Theyby

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
sigmaphil
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 14
Description
A debate about the theyby, the genderless baby
Round 1
Published:
Theyby: Genderless/gender-neutral Baby.


That's what meaning I'm going for.

Ok, now reasons:

1. Real Identity

One of the main cons of theybies is that of a child questioning their identity, are they male or female?
2. Big Responsibility 
It's harder for them to create their own identity, it's like giving a newborn child the opportunity to name themselves. They'd have names like "Wahhh" or other gibberish names, which just aren't practical. When it comes to deciding if a baby is male or female it's up to mother nature.

3. The Main Benefit Probably Won't Work Out
Theybies will be mixed with gender-assigned children, so it'll be really hard. It'll also be hard for adults, to use gender-neutral pronouns, and change the way they speak.

Published:
I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this Topic, "Theyby" also known as gender-neutral parenting.

I am taking the Pro side, which means I need to show that raising Theyby children is a viable way of raising children.  I do not feel I need to disprove gender-specific parenting, just that gender-neutral parenting is a viable alternative.

Rebuttal

Theyby: Genderless/gender-neutral Baby. 


That's what meaning I'm going for.
Understood, but - and maybe I'm stating the obvious - I would like to clarify for my arguments that a Theybe is not truly genderless biologically speaking.  They do have gender "parts".  To me, this is an argument about whether it is a viable option for Theybies to be raised without their guardian's overbearing stereotypical gender influence on them.  Additionally, since Theybies is a fairly new thing, voters will need to judge on common sense and reasoning and not on fully tested clinical studies.


Ok, now reasons:

1. Real Identity

One of the main cons of theybies is that of a child questioning their identity, are they male or female?
When they "discover" their sexual organs (puberty?), I think this may help answer their questions of whether they are male or female.  Plus their parent's at that point can explain the difference between male and female, but do it in a non-sexist way  So not a negative.

2. Big Responsibility 
It's harder for them to create their own identity, it's like giving a newborn child the opportunity to name themselves. They'd have names like "Wahhh" or other gibberish names, which just aren't practical. When it comes to deciding if a baby is male or female it's up to mother nature.
This argument does not follow for me.  How can it be harder for Theybies to create their own identity?  If anything Theybies would have an easier time since there is no external pressure on them to conform to gender stereotypes. 

3. The Main Benefit Probably Won't Work Out
Theybies will be mixed with gender-assigned children, so it'll be really hard. It'll also be hard for adults, to use gender-neutral pronouns, and change the way they speak.
How can it be harder for adults to use gender-neutral pronouns?  Again it seems easier to me to just call every child, "they" instead of putting the onerous on the adult to use gender-specific pronouns.  One word says it all.

I will use my opponent's sources to bolster my own arguments since my opponent's sources include a pro side

Argument

I just want to get this out in the open, if you'll excuse the expression, I am against Parents that raise Theybies in a way that allows them to choose a gender.  As a Christian, I believe children that have boy parts are boys and children that have girl parts are girls.  To me raising a child as a Theybe does not mean encouraging sexual reassignment surgery because Johnny wants to now be Juanita.  This is taking Theybe to the extreme.  My understanding and support for the Pro side of Theybies is all about Freedom.

Raising a child gender-neutral encourages them to exercise their Freedom...

  1. To be Themselves - By not raising the child in a gender-specific environment it allows the child the freedom to be themselves.  (e.g. painting a girls room pink and putting princess stickers on the wall.)
  2. To Choose - Maybe Johnny would rather have an Easy Bake Oven instead of a Nerf Dart Rifle.  Or maybe Mary would rather have a Transformer instead of a Barbie Doll.  Let them choose!
  3. To Dream - Children should be encouraged to be anything they want in life.  Let them dream.  There should be no gender barriers of entry set up for them to achieve their dream. 
Conclusion

Parents should raise their children as Theybies without gender stereotypes.  This will allow them to grow up without preconceived gender restrictions and allow them to be all that they can be.

I believe I have shown through common sense and reasoning that raising a Theybe is a viable alternative to traditional gender-specific parenting.  Please vote for Pro.

Round 2
Published:
When they "discover" their sexual organs (puberty?), I think this may help answer their questions of whether they are male or female.  Plus their parent's at that point can explain the difference between male and female, but do it in a non-sexist way  So not a negative.
But what are they in their hearts? What if they think they are female but shocked to see that their male? What if they don't want to be gay, but they chose too? 
This argument does not follow for me.  How can it be harder for Theybies to create their own identity?  If anything Theybies would have an easier time since there is no external pressure on them to conform to gender stereotypes. 
I'm saying that it's too big of a responsibility for babies to decide. It gives them an un-needed thinking period.
How can it be harder for adults to use gender-neutral pronouns?  Again it seems easier to me to just call every child, "they" instead of putting the onerous on the adult to use gender-specific pronouns.  One word says it all.
It's harder for them because they are so used so used to saying he/she. For example in French, ALL NOUNS are based off of feminine or masculine things so France needs to recreate their entire language just because of these "theybies". 

  1. To be Themselves - By not raising the child in a gender-specific environment it allows the child the freedom to be themselves.  (e.g. painting a girls room pink and putting princess stickers on the wall.)
  1.  Other kids might mix into this, they would have friends wouldn't they?
To Choose - Maybe Johnny would rather have an Easy Bake Oven instead of a Nerf Dart Rifle.  Or maybe Mary would rather have a Transformer instead of a Barbie Doll.  Let them choose!
I feel as if parents already let their kids choose, Johnny might want an EBO, and he asks his parents. It's just his friends make fun of him right? Who has an ez back oven? Friends make fun of them.
To Dream - Children should be encouraged to be anything they want in life.  Let them dream.  There should be no gender barriers of entry set up for them to achieve their dream. 
What if they're male and they want to be a female. They will be biased in the workplace, so theybies actually can lose someone an advantage.

I will use my opponent's sources to bolster my own arguments since my opponent's sources include a pro side
Vote me for sources
-----
Thanks for the debate
Vote for con



Published:
I thank my opponent for their thoughtful and considered response.  My rebuttal and final argument are below.

Rebuttal


I will use my opponent's sources to bolster my own arguments since my opponent's sources include a pro side
Vote me for sources
I added some new sources for support to my rebuttal in my second argument.  So sources are not a clear cut win for Con.  The sources are linked within the rebuttal.


When they "discover" their sexual organs (puberty?), I think this may help answer their questions of whether they are male or female.  Plus their parent's at that point can explain the difference between male and female, but do it in a non-sexist way  So not a negative.
But what are they in their hearts? What if they think they are female but shocked to see that their male? What if they don't want to be gay, but they chose too? 
Why would they be shocked?  They are being raised gender-neutral, so they have no pre-conceived notion of gender.

If they don't want to be gay then that is their choice, which is the beauty of raising Theybies, freedom of choice


This argument does not follow for me.  How can it be harder for Theybies to create their own identity?  If anything Theybies would have an easier time since there is no external pressure on them to conform to gender stereotypes.  
I'm saying that it's too big of a responsibility for babies to decide. It gives them an un-needed thinking period.
Maybe I am misunderstanding my opponent's original argument.  It sounds to me like my opponent is making the argument that babies can decide their gender?
According to my source (linked here) children are unable to identify letters until the age of between 2 and 3 and cannot say heir ABC's until they are between 4 to 5 years of age.  My point being that babies are certainly unable to choose their gender because their brains are not developed enough.

How can it be harder for adults to use gender-neutral pronouns?  Again it seems easier to me to just call every child, "they" instead of putting the onerous on the adult to use gender-specific pronouns.  One word says it all.
It's harder for them because they are so used so used to saying he/she. For example in French, ALL NOUNS are based off of feminine or masculine things so France needs to recreate their entire language just because of these "theybies". 
I will concede it may be harder for French-speaking parents to use gender-neutral pronouns.

  1. To be Themselves - By not raising the child in a gender-specific environment it allows the child the freedom to be themselves.  (e.g. painting a girls room pink and putting princess stickers on the wall.)
  1.  Other kids might mix into this, they would have friends wouldn't they?
Don't know how to rebut this since I don't understand my opponent's point.  If my opponent is asking if Theybies have friends, my answer would be yes, most likely.  It would depend on how friendly they are themselves.  You know what the Good Book says, "A man who has friends must himself be friendly," Proverbs 18:24

To Choose - Maybe Johnny would rather have an Easy Bake Oven instead of a Nerf Dart Rifle.  Or maybe Mary would rather have a Transformer instead of a Barbie Doll.  Let them choose!
I feel as if parents already let their kids choose, Johnny might want an EBO, and he asks his parents. It's just his friends make fun of him right? Who has an ez back oven? Friends make fun of them. 
So is it better for children to be raised by friends who make fun of them (Bullies) or by their parents who love them?  I'm speaking rhetorically of course.   The obvious choice is loving parents.

To Dream - Children should be encouraged to be anything they want in life.  Let them dream.  There should be no gender barriers of entry set up for them to achieve their dream. 
What if they're male and they want to be a female. They will be biased in the workplace, so theybies actually can lose someone an advantage.
I assume once they are old enough to work they have chosen their gender.  It's up to others to accept or reject them.  This is not a burden that should be borne by Theybies.  In fact, in some countries, it would be considered a hate crime, which is against the law.

Final Argument

I have no further arguments needed because I feel like I made my points well.

Conclusion

I was tasked with proving that raising a child as gender-neutral, a Theybe, is a viable alternative to gender-specific parenting.  I believe I have achieved that task.  Please vote Pro!

I want to thank my opponent for an excellent debate!





Added:
--> @sigmaphil
G.G
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thanks for your vote!
Contender
#13
Added:
--> @kathy_debater
Good point! I appreciate your input!
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WaterPheonix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Club provides many arguments that Sigmaphil cannot refute such as Club's French people not being able to adjust argument, which Sigmaphil conceded to. Also, Sigmaphil does not provide sufficient refutes to Club's argument of responsibility. Sigmaphil also mostly uses Club's sources for his first argument and uses the Bible and a baby training website in his second argument while Club uses his own sources all the way throughout. I'd like to end this vote by saying that my vote is only a reflection of the debate not a reflection of my personal opinions.
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments and sources are insufficient as per the voting guidelines.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
*******************************************************************
#11
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
I agree on what you said. There's just one thing. I think parents can call Theybies he or she according to what the child wishes, or according to their sexual organs. Calling the child they is just a bit strange. Moreover, parents can name the kid neutrally, such as Hayden, a name suitable for two genders.
#10
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Thanks for your vote!
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
I'm sticking with this one. I'm really busy and I can't afford to go for a bigger one.
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @Club
Again it doesn't matter to me. Let me know as soon as you can what you want to do. In the meantime, I'm preparing a rebuttal to your first argument, just in case you decline my offer.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @Club
I would not be against forfeiting this debate and restarting it with more arguments. You could send me an invite and I would accept.
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
I assure you this is not a troll debate. I accidentally made it 2 rounds.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @King_8
Yeah, the 2 Rounds definitely caught my eye. Should be a fun one!
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
I think it's a troll debate, plus its only 2 rounds xD
#3
Added:
--> @Club
Let's do it! Although I'm not sure what I'm debating on exactly, lol.
Contender
#2
Added:
O_o
#1
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The first thing is what a theyby actually is. Con chose a fairly extreme example of allowing the baby to specifically chose their gender; pro presented a scenario where parents simply don’t expose their children to gender stereotypes, and allow the child to chose preferences in toys, clothes, etc: and allow them to develop without socially mandated roles and preferences - to allow them to develop as they would normally without overbearing social pressure from parents.
This sounds pretty reasonable. It is also supported by cons own sources!
Con argues that there will be issues of whether there would be gender confusion. This seems to be eliminated by pros actual explanation that it is simply a removal of social stereotypes, rather than a denial of biology: even cons own source implies that gender confusion is less of an issue: as if a child ends up being gay, being brought up neutrally allows the child to be more comfortable with it.
This issue is largely repeated with the issue of responsibility con raises. It’s not clear how Con sources that this is really a problem as his sources imply it is one of the strengths - as pro points out.
Cons final issue, relating to gender neutral pro-nouns, doesn’t appear to clearly follow; while I can appreciate gender neutral pro nouns maybe difficult, I don’t believe this difficulty translates into completely undermining the position. Even considering the French language concession, this doesn’t imply that the intent is doomed to fail.
Cons next round; his arguments are that kids would make fun of socially unacceptable gender choices, and what appears to be a misportrayal of the subject: implying that it is up to the babies to decide what gender they are: rather than the scenario that pro puts forward which is to raise children in the absence of stereotyping and let them develop as they want.
Pro points out the issue of choice, and that the negative con raises is actually a positive. Pro also casts doubt on both the bullying aspect (by pointing out this is something that is inherently unacceptable and not the responsibility of theybies themselves).
Out of all of this, I feel that con doesn’t offer any substantial harm here as to why gender neutral parenting isn’t viable. On the other hand, pro offers a set of reasonable arguments as to why it is both viable, and most important, that it has some clear benefits.
As a result, arguments go to pro.
Sources: cons sources shot him in the foot. The first source undermines two of the key points he made, and supported pros; and the second was not in my opinion particularly authoritative; as a largely magazine style article.
I normally award sources when one side turns a source to support their position or land a knock out blow.
Given that cons own source adds warrant to pros main perceived benefit, and pro uses this to undermine con and bolster his own position, sources go to con here also.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The entire argument of Con was that bullying is good and resisting it and potentially putting your child in harm's way of bullying later on in life is toxic for you to do. While disgusting and against everything I stand for, I'd have allowed this angle had Con genuinely gone into the psychological and sociological justifications and proofs against the well-being of bullied trans kids being reason to not raise children as non-cis. Con didn't do this and both sides seemed to only use sources to back general things they said, with the most specific being the babycenter source that was in the last Round so Con never got to reply to it and also was such a generic fact to the debate that it was not better.
Pro argues that the focus of theyby-raising is to enable the child to become either cis, tans or genderfluid by their own choice and not a pressured one. Cons refutation was that bullying is inevitable and a great thing to cower to but seriously Con put zero effort into justifying why, while every single thing Pro said was left unchallenged other than by unjustified bully-synpathising.