Instigator / Pro

Debate Art should change their “gender” option and replace it with “sex”, where only “male” or “female” are options


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 6 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Full resolution:
Debate Art should change their “gender” option and replace it with “sex”, where only “male” or “female” are options

BoP is shared.

In “edit profile”, Debate Art currently provides a ‘gender’ field with multiple options for a user to choose from. For Pro to fulfill their BoP they must reasonably assert why this field should be replaced with a “sex” field with “male” and “female” as its only options. As Con, they ought to argue why the current gender field, with it's current options ought
not to be replaced by a sex field. Moreover, it is to be assumed that there can only exist either the sex field or the gender field; hence it should be argued why one should take precedence over the other.

Sex - “the sex as determined by the presence of the XX (female) or the XY (male) genotype in somatic cells, without regard to phenotypic manifestations.”

Gender - “either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.”

This debate should be impossible to accept; unwarranted acceptance will infer immediate forfeutiure. If you are interested in accepting please comment on the debate.

R1: Pro waives, Con provides opening argument
R2: Pro provides opening argument with rebuttal, Con rebuts
R3: Defence/rebuttal
R4: Defence, with closing statements (no new rebuttals)

Round 1
What I am about to produce is going to seem like something that took me a few minutes to think of and type. I assure you I have put full effort in behind the scenes and have a series of rebuttals prepared, depending on the angle my opponent takes, to cement this victory home.

I am about to produce to you a very simple explanation of why this resolution is irrefutably false unless you take the only path that is available to oppose my case; opposing every other element of Debate Art's ethos.

So, while not indestructible, the 'destruction' of my case is going to require Pro to contradict many others parts of Debate Art (DA) in order to have an angle to take me down. In doing so, Pro will be proving that he is anti Debate Art and need to take the stance that the site in general and other websites like it are in some way corrupt in their motives, implementation or both.

To put this in the easiest ways for voters to digest, my case is that the profile page is about what you want to appear as and DA is not a standard social media platform but a shrine to debate, free of real life identity, politics etc. This is evident not only in the fact that every other thing on the profile is widely accepted to be what you want to appear as (as opposed to blackmailing you into any kind of scenario where you need to reveal things about you IRL) but also by the entire doxxing clause of the Rules and Code of Conduct page []. Why would there be so many layers to protect you against the very thing that other social media platforms seek to pressure you into revealing, with both stick and carrot methods (you may not know it but Twitter, FB etc can all ban you for having a profile that isn't your real name, profile picture and details... Yeah, even YouTube... It's just that they don't tend to act on it unless the account is acting fishy).

Since Debate Art is more of a Reddit-esque social media than a Facebook-esque one, it becomes clear that the concept is about letting you say things and not have real-life backlash for them as such. Thus, no matter how ridiculous it seems as it's only your biological sex, it is againt DA's ethos to have you give biological sex in your profile especially when pitted against the option of having had Gender instead.

Gender is the societal character attached either to a biological sex or some other in-between variety... Alternatively, of course are people who are 'this-to-that' trans and completely and utterly identify as the opposite gender but most trans people are actually simply 'over the line in the sand' in the other direction and tend to be pressured to pick a side between male and female so they pick the other gender to convey what they wish to be seen more as when really they wished to just be genderfluid and free of 'he or she'. I won't provide evidence of that in this Round but note that this is not transphobic, I admitted some really are biologically female but gender-wise male, it's just that I am certain most trans people (not all) are simply over 55% between 0% one gender and 100%  but not really super near 100% another and what they are pressured to do is take the other gender role because they like their biological sex's assigned one even less than the other. There's so, so much to why people don't identify as their biological sex, so I don't see what on earth would be a motive on a profile page on a website that frees you of your real identity to opt for biological sex instead of the gender you wish to be identified as.

Now, interestingly there's an angle furthermore to take if you think lying is immoral. If lying is immoral, it would be even more beneficial to have 'Gender' as the option and not 'Sex'. People can literally not lie about their gender on a profile page unless you count people who will for trolling's sake or proving some point's sake take the gender that they actually don't identify as, one example on this website is Thett3 who regularly on this website has said he is happy to be identified openly as a male despite his profile saying his Gender is female (I'll link to it, if need be, in later Rounds). I am unsure what drives such individuals but they are a severe minority and the point I'm making is if you want to set up a profile page where people are basically not going to ever lie, since Gender is de facto what you wish to be identified as, then morally (if you think lying is evil) it is optimal to have Gender as the profile option.
Round 2
== Aff ==
Before I begin, I would like to identify key parts about this debate. Per the description, Con ought to advocate for the “gender” field; comprised of the following options: “male”, “female” or “other” using social or cultural factors to be able to distinguish between these three categories. Thus, my arguments aim to show that one cannot coherently distinguish between said categories using “social” or “cultural” factors. Hence, nullifying the coherency of the field as a whole. Moreover, I aim to show that the “sex” field can absolutely distinguish between “male” and “female”, thus it is the only coherent option.
A1. Sex is rooted in biology whereas gender is not

1.1   “Sex” is scientifically precise
Per the biological definition for “sex” provided; the distinction between male and females rely on the genotype of the somatic cells. Simply, those who possess somatic cells with XX genotypes are female, and those with XY are male [1].  Thus, the notion of “sex” is reducible to facts grounded in the physical world. The importance of this will be shown later.
1.1.1   Intersex
It could be argued that intersex people can’t coherently align with either “male” or “female” which could seem problematic for my position. However, it is a misconception that intersex are neither male nor female; let’s examine the types of intersex:

i)                    46, XX DSD
This is where the person possesses the chromosomes of a woman, but the external genitalia appears male [2].  Obviously, one with this form of intersex can still be deemed female.
ii)                   46, XY DSD
Identical to XX intersex, except one is male [2].
iii)                 46, XX ovotesticular DSD
Here is where more of a compelling argument can be made; as a person with this form is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue; and can even have both XX and XY chromosomes [3]. However, per the definition of sexes provided, the genotype only applies to “somatic cells” which do not include reproductive cells.
iv)                 Sex chromosome DSD
This is where a male or a female is born with either an extra or missing X chromosome. Regardless, one that still has a Y chromosome is denoted as male [3].
1.2 “Gender” is scientifically imprecise
Here, I argue that “gender” is irreducible to physical fact. Gender,  relies on “social” and “cultural” factors when determining whether one is “male”, “female” or “other”.  These factors are wholly unquantifiable and subjective; how could one distinguish themselves as absolutely “male”, “female” or “other” using subjective factors with it actually having coherent value? To say that something is “more X”, “less X”, “X but not Y” one needs to *demonstrate a method with which he/she/other can determine the value of X*.  
1.2.1 Supervenience
In science, observations are reducible; for example, if we were to analyse the temperature of a closed system, we would find that temperature is actually reducible to the vibration of particles. Thus, temperature supervenes on grounded empirical axioms (law of thermodynamics).  B-Properties supervene on A-Properties [4]; temperature equates to a B-Property supervening on the A-Property that is particle vibration. B-properties change if and only if A-Properties are changed; you increase the vibration of the particles (add energy to the system), the temperature changes (the temperature of the system increases). Indeed, to talk of the temperature of a system being 0 degrees and not 100 degrees is coherent as temperature is reducible to a quantifiable measurement grounded in the physical world.
The issue here is it is impossible for “male”, “female” or “other” to supervene on “social” or “cultural” factors as *these factors are not reducible to any fact about the physical world*. Thus, to distinguish whether one is male, or female, or other, without any scientific (i.e biological) supervenience is absurd.  Since sex supervenes on the empirical state of one’s somatic cells, it successfully supervenes on a grounded, quantifiable property. Thus, one can coherently make the distinction of “male” or “female” using the “sex” field.
1.3   Logical Formulation
P1: X supervenes a grounded A-Property                               
P2: This A-Property is either biological or cultural and social   
P3: Biological                                                                           
C1: X does not supervene on cultural and social factors          
P4: If C1 then “gender” is incoherent                                       
C2: Gender is incoherent                                                          
(let X be the distinction between male and female)

1.3 Premise One
This ought to be true per the resolution; in order to coherently distinguish one identity from the other, there ought to be an objective measure to quantify them. Thus, it must supervene on an objective fact that is grounded in the physical world.
1.3 Premise two
Per the definitions provided, this is the only possible trichotomy.
1.3 Premise Three
As aforementioned, cultural and social factors do not supervene on anything empirical, thus “male”, “female”, or “other” cannot be coherently assigned to anyone.
1.3 Premise Four
If “gender” entails absurdities in providing coherent distinctions between “male”, “female” and “other” its purpose is unjustified; especially in light that the “sex” field can.
1.3 C1 & C2
Thus follow logically from the premises.
A2. Other examples are absurd

Since “gender” has no scientific underpinning, I will show that other examples of subjective notions of objective properties are nonsensical.  Take date of birth (DoB) for instance; we all have an objective date of birth, thus we all have an objective age. Despite the fact that there are subjective qualities inherently tied with age (e.g maturity) one cannot “identify” as any other age apart from their actual age. For example, to equate this to gender, all one would need to do is create a new “subjective notion” that takes “social and cultural” factors into account and ascribe it a name, e.g “aje” (I have just made this word up). “Aje” dissimilar to “age”, takes into account other pseudo-scientific qualities such as subjective social and cultural factors. For example, one can “identify” as 35 years old, because their interests and personality closely aligns to 80s culture. A subjectively mature 12 year old, could have the “aje” of 18 years old, because they might be as mature as an 18 year old. Clearly, just because I arbitrarily make up a new word and included inherent social and cultural factors does not mean it has any meaningful value. For the same reason it would be absurd for me to affirm the veracity of “aje” over “age”, it is likewise absurd for me to argue “gender” over “sex”.
A3. Data Consistency

If whether I am “male”, “female” or “other” depended on social and cultural factors, then who is to say that my gender doesn’t change consistently? What would stop me from being a male one minute, but a female the next? This would imply people have the option to often change their gender on DART.
3.1 Inaccurate Demographical Analysis
If this were the case, DART would be unable to create an “accurate” depiction of their user demographic; as this statistic would be constantly changing. Moreover, DART would be unable to design their website based on this user demographic, because the sexual dimorphic distinction would be lost as biological males can identify as women and vice versa. It would be more lucrative for DART to provoke the “sex” field as it provides absolute data to analyse. They would know what demographic they are appealing to; and how to adjust their website accordingly to appeal to that demographic; whether it be UI design, or even advertising.  With the “gender” field such data would be inconsistent, forever changing and misrepresenting the true user demographic of the site.
== Rebuttals ==

==      Neg      ==

C1. DA “Ethos”
Con consistently talks about DA’s ethos but fails to source what this ethos is . He outlines that to oppose his argument would imply that one is “anti-DA”, but doesn’t explain specifically why.
C1.1 DA vs Social Media Platforms (SMP)
Con states that:

 “DA is not a standard social media platform but a shrine to debate, free of real life identity, politics etc.”

Whilst I concur DA is dissimilar to that of FB and Twitter and that it doesn’t badger you for personal data, it is an erroneous conclusion that one ought to be able to “appear to be whatever they want” on the site. Especially when one can be “free of real life identity” by just simply leaving the sex field blank. There is a difference between not providing personal data, and selecting random data you would choose to be. In this case, Con would be behooved in advocating the “aje” field over DoB. In fact, why wouldn’t there be settings where I can identify to be anything I want? Why can I not identify as a 98 year old Pterodactyl and have debates with 76 year old 1943 Japanese style battleships?
 As such, asking my DoB, my political ideology, my education and my occupation is “anti-DA” and inherently contradicts “DA’s ethos”.  Why is it that these objective questions do not breach DA’s ethos but the “sex” field does?
C2. Gender Fluidity

Here, Con shows the fallibility of the gender field; he states:

“most trans people are simply over 55%  between 0% one gender and 100% but not really super near 100%”

What would make someone 100% male/female or… other? Or 50% male/ 50% female? If a man likes the colour pink would that make him 2% more female? But what if he enjoys hunting, does that make him 5% more male? Or how would that value relate to him liking pink? Or who is to objectively say that those things are innately masculine or feminine anyway? Or is it just base intuition that one subjectively feels they are male or female or more female than male etc.? These are the problems we encounter when we try and quantify non-physical values.
Moreover, he asserts:

“I don’t see what on earth would be a motive on a profile page on a website that frees you of your real identity to opt for biological sex instead of the gender you wish to be identified as”

As previously mentioned, then what is the point of having objective questions on this page at all? If the goal is to free one of their true identity why can’t I identify as a venus fly trap? Why doesn’t the site include social and cultural factors for my age, education, native language or country? It seems to me, Con has unwarrantedly assumed the website to free one of their true identity and implies that this means that socio-cultural factors ought to be shoehorned into every question we are asked about our data. It seems to me, DA asks for your data but doesn’t badger you for it; it’s ethos isn’t to necessarily free you of your true identity it just provides more anonymity relative to social media platforms, since it allows you to leave all these fields blank.

R1 Gender as a result would be more ambiguous than sex
Con states that the gender field allows one to assign with their biological sex if they want to, but also has the option to choose another option based on socio-cultural factors. This means no-one knows whether or not one is biologically male/female or not! It completely makes the biological factor redundant. In terms of analytics DA would have to guess whether or not one is truly that sex or because they identify as that sex. Wouldn’t it be a better alternative to put such in one’s bio; that they’d rather be referred to as he/she etc. or that they’re on the fence about their gender? And if so why would this contravene their true biological nature?
R2 Con hasn’t shown the coherency of the field
Since, gender would result in reducing sex to subjectivity, there are infinite amounts of genders. As such I could identify as Michael Jackson as that could subjectively be a gender to me. This nullifies the entire biological portion as it is superseded by subjectivity. This is absurd. It’s like having the option to identify as your biological age, but simultaneously have the option to identify as any other age. It’s oxymoronic and I conveyed the juxtaposition between objectivity and subjectivity in my affirmative case; it is innately paradoxical to have an option that is simultaneously objective and subjective at the same time. I commend that Con’s onus extends to the internal consistency of the field. I assert that if it’s incoherent then it is inapt as a viable parameter on DA.
Over to Con.

Round 3
I'm surprised RM has forfeited considering all the hassle at the beginning of the debate and how he stated he would put in "full effort". Regardless, I extend.
Round 4
Extend. If anyone else is interested in this debate let me know.