Instigator / Con
16
1411
rating
11
debates
13.64%
won
Topic
#1674

Is gender a social construct?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
15
Better sources
6
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
5
5

After 5 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...

PressF4Respect
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
35
1523
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

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:

This debate hinged on the definition of gender as social construct. If CON was going to win, CON really needed to get to those definitions first and separate social contstruct as an ordinary definiton for gender. Once PRO show that gender=social contstruct in any ordinary sense, PRO had little defense. CON single source did not particularly back CON's conclusion while PRO's serial definitions locked the case down.

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:

Con stated that gender is biological, not psychological. Pro excellently offers several definitions from reputable sources that state that gender is socially constructed and not biological as Con claims. Con's response to this merely states that sex and gender are related but not the same, this doesn't necessarily support his case. Pro then offers some definitions of sex that demonstrate that sex is biological, while gender is philological and socially constructed. Con then just restates his R2 for the remaining rounds where they establish that sex and gender aren't the same, but related. Again this doesn't prove that gender is not socially constructed, Pro has already established by using definitions that sex is biological while gender is socially constructed.

At the end of the day, Pro offers sources which establish that sex is biological while gender is socially constructed. Con never really is able to contest this.

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:

Con outlines that genders have biological difference and thus are not social constructs. Pro explains that gender is socially constructed, whereas sex is not, and thus Con is referring to sex and not gender. This works directly against Con's resolution, but Con opts not to defend his resolution but rather to clarify that he did agree that sex and gender are different. By failing to defend or argue for his resolution, Con essentially concedes the debate, and thus Pro gets full argument points.

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:

No no contest was put forward once pro offered his opening.

Pro proved that by every definition it's the social side (ergo, socially constructed), which could have varying roles within different cultures. While con's case that some aspects of identification stem from biology stand, those aspects seem to be referred to as sex, rather than by gender.

Sources were overwhelmingly in favor of pro. A key one being WHO, which confirmed pro's premise, ensuring it was not a mere assertion (technically every source was the same, but this one had the greatest authority to me).

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:

Pro says "no, gender is not a social construct, but it’s purely biological." then straight after this says "While I can agree that certain aspects of gender can be said to be ‘social construct’"

He has made contradictory points.
-It is purely biological.
-Some aspects are socially constructed.

Saying purely is another word for entirely meaning you have no room for something else.

"As of matter fact, there are brain difference between male and female brain, which will leave to different brain activity.
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders"

I guess this is an argument but this undermined by the previous point. On this own it isn't even a good one given the link states "Scientists have discovered approximately 100 gender differences in the brain". I thought was providing a point for gender not being a social construct as in there is male and female but here we have 100 gender differences in the brain.

This is the only arguments made by Con so yeah.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Pro decided to lay out definitions of the debate. The problem with this is that if both people agree on the definition then there is nothing to debate about in this debate. Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Pro would have conceded the entire debate to the other side. Even though this is well weird of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.

Pro gave dictionaires definitions from Oxford, Merriam-Webster, WHO and Standford medicine which I consider to be more than sufficient to demonstrate that he didn't use site that are not really popular to win by definition.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Both did give rebuttals but neither of them posted anything relevant to what the other person says. Con decided to not rebut the main point as in popular websites are defining it my way instead says "I said gender and sex related to each other. I never said that their the same.". Pro on the other hand decided to talk about sex and gender when that wasn't necessary. I highlighted the problems with Con's points which was all he needed to rebut the claims brought forward but he didn't instead talked about the difference between sex and gender. The debate was about "Is gender a social construct?" not if sex and gender are the same. Both of them after gave conjecture which was the fault of Con. With nothing to rebut from Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Only arguments because I can't be bothered to do the rest.

Defining yourself to win by using popular sources is better than contradictory statements made through the very next words Con typed and the link Con used to support Con's side.

Pro wins the argument vote because of this.