Instigator / Con
6
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1124

Theyby

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

sigmaphil
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1557
rating
7
debates
71.43%
won
Description

A debate about the theyby, the genderless baby

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.