Instigator / Pro
42
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

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

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
18
3
Sources points
12
2
Spelling and grammar points
6
3
Conduct points
6
0

With 6 votes and 34 points ahead, the winner is ...

semperfortis
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
8
1586
rating
321
debates
65.73%
won
Description
~ 1,526 / 5,000

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.

Format:
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)

Added:
Instigator
--> @RationalMadman

I do not think you are stupid RM.

Added:
Contender
--> @semperfortis

You can mock me all you want, if you do/don't have autism you probably realise that one singular benefit of Autism is that it matters not in the slightest to us that others think we are stupid so long as they don't prevent us doing what we want to do.

Added:

Forfeited debates aren't moderated.

Added:
Instigator
--> @RationalMadman

That explains a lot. Thanks RationalMadman.

Added:
Contender
--> @semperfortis

You're completely wrong there and maybe you have autism that doesn't allow you to realise the abstract notion of website identification on a site like this but as I myself have autism, that would surprise me and mean you have a really strong strain.

A website doesn't owe a shred of respect to science, you just want it to.

Added:
Instigator
--> @RationalMadman

Whilst that is true, they aren't creating subjective notions of those objective properties; they are people choosing to not represent their true selves. If all of those objective questions were replaced with their subjective socio-cultural counterparts, people could still choose to not represent what they would identify as.

Added:
Contender
--> @semperfortis

Online you can be many ages, hair colours etc. It's not absurd for a website.

Added:
Instigator
--> @PsychometricBrain

That's great! Let me know when you've returned from holiday.

Added:
Instigator
--> @RationalMadman

Fair enough. Although, I would think @Ramshutu would vote fairly and honestly. I do agree with you on how other people could decide a winner; ultimatley voting from personal bias. If anything, that would mean you would most likely win, since it seems I am affirming the unpopular opinion.

I do believe my argument is irrefutable, but if it were to come down to "but are we just going to pretend like science doesn't exist, so that people can have more choices" I wouldn't see why this cannnot apply to anything. Like, what's the point of having scientific principles when we can simply throw the textbook out the window, create a new, arbitrary concept that uses socio-economic factors and ascribe it a name. Why can't we do this with age, hair colour, race, height, weight, species...? People would find that absurd, but I am unsure why people feel the same way about gender.

Added:
Contender
--> @semperfortis

Probably not, I already know Ramshutu will vote for you no matter what as he will make your 'clarity' point hold more weight than all points I bring up as he is highly entertained by voting against me.

I also know barely anyone else will vote on the debate other than people who dislike me so... Yeah, I'm not into wasting effort on a debate where you're going to make it all about clarity of the male vs female and I'm going to make it all about necessity of the option-choice (gender vs sex) to the site economically and socially.

It's going to come down to 'does clarity or economic and social benefit matter more to you, personally' and the voters will freely vote against either of us. In fact, so very many debates come down to such nonsense which is in a way what makes them fair for both sides but then equally unfair all at once as it enables voters to pick and choose which side they want to vote against and can veil any corrupt agenda within their vote.

Added:
--> @semperfortis

I'm currently on holiday but I will be back in about two weeks. Shoot me a pm if you want to debate this topic once I'm back, seems interesting and fairly straight-forward

Added:
Instigator
--> @RationalMadman

Would you be interested in finishing this debate where we left off; copy and pasting the current rounds?

Added:

Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:

75% FF "That's poor conduct!"

Added:
Instigator
--> @RationalMadman

12 hours left. Just a heads up.

Added:
Instigator
--> @Ramshutu

Yes, that is exactly the case.

Added:
Instigator
--> @RationalMadman

It says "any unwarranted acceptance". I challenged you to the debate, thus your acceptance is warranted. Moreover, I messaged you before the debate to carefully read the description before accepting if there was anything you wanted changed.

Added:

RM did an oopsie

Added:

He made an a debate that was impossible to accept, you asked for the debate; he challenged you, you accepted.

Did it occur to you that he just copy and pasted the debate description? Rather than him maliciously trying to troll you?

Perhaps it would be better to, perhaps ASK him first before freaking out?

Added:
Contender
--> @David @bsh1 @Ramshutu

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1162/comment_links/15543

Added:
Contender
--> @David

this is utter bullshit he trolled me. He challenged me directly to this debate and then has that I forfeit if I accept in the description.

Added:

easy win for Pro