Resolution: A trans person is the gender they identify as (As corrected in comments)
Thank you Juice for accepting the debate, I hope we can have a constructive debate.
My opponent seems to have an entire section to arguments that were not made by me, as such I am not at all held to any of the rebuttals Juice makes unless I take on one of the claims specifically. Intelligence_06 may agree on the broader details, but as his new debate demonstrates, we do not agree on details.
BoP: As pro I must demonstrate the proposition: “A trans person is the gender they identify as”, Juice shares the opposite burden, demonstrating the proposition, “A trans person is not the gender they identify as.”
Structure: Though it may be a little unorthodox, I will address my opponent’s claims before I make my constructive, in other words, I will rebut before I construct a case.
Luckily for me, my opponent has helpfully provided a table of contents so to speak, I will be addressing that sequentially. The specific section that was addressed to Intelligence_06’s arguments is Section 4: “Foreseeable rebuttals” as such I will not touch this section as in-depth as I do the others, as they are not my positions.
1. Introduction - The Rebuttal
- “In society, the phrase “men are not women” is now considered a discriminatory phrase. The New York Post   reports that pre-school teachers in Brooklyn are forced to teach, according to their curriculum that
- “Everybody has the right to choose their own gender, by listening to their own hearts and mind, everyone gets to choose whether they are a boy or a girl or neither or something else”.”
This introductory sequence exactly demonstrates a mistake in Con’s approach, regardless of what a school teaches, this does not introduce the factual or in-factual-ness of the resolution. Not a real objection, simply pointing out the flaw in the implication of the rhetoric.
- “This is what 5-year-olds, with their malleable and unexperienced little minds are learning at a time where they are figuring out their own identity and the people around them. This is a rapidly growing issue being promoted by the government and it needs to be stopped. The only way is the confront this ideology head on.”
This entire introductory is nothing more than what the courts would call, “Poisoning the Well” essentially attempting to make character or unfounded moral claims on x or y. This is nothing but more rhetoric, Con’s supposed answer to the unfounded section of that sentence?
- “Thankfully , this is not too difficult, as I know that men are not women. How do I know this? Because of biology and common sense. If men were women then the term men and women would just be blank names, conveniently interchangeable like a pair of socks. To suggest that women can be men takes away the value of being either and proposes that gender is just like a costume, something that can be changed. If men were women, then the term might as well not exist.”
What an interesting proposition, untrue as it is, firstly let’s cover Con’s two axioms they apply to their argument. Biology and Common sense. Now biology is a bigger contention that shows up a lot later on, and as such I will address it there, but Common sense? Merriam Webster defines common sense as the following: “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
” Therefore if anything Con says here is not sound or prudent, then it is not common sense.
My opponent completely misunderstands what being trans is, A man is a man and not a woman is precisely why trans people are trans. To clarify - A female who is perceived as a man is a woman. This key section, “perceived as a man” is what my opponent misunderstands. The entire point is that gender is something which can be different from your sex, as the definitions agree, therefore it would not be, “like changing costumes” this is a false equivalence, it would be more apt to compare the gender of a female inside the sex of maledom.
Due to this simple flaw, this is not common sense, therefore this introductory is bunk. Simple strawmen and false equivalences, nothing more.
2. The Correlation of Gender and Sex - The Rebuttal
- “Pros Claim: Sex is biological, and gender is in the mind”
No, not necessarily, I argue gender as a concept is societal, but the interpretation of one’s identity of gender is based in the mind, though there is no real difference between the mind and biological, aside from the consciousness.
- “Trans ideologist are very keen to point at the dictionary and WHO to confirm that gender and sex are different.”
They go on to basically claim that logic trumps textbook, and that the definitions are logically contradictory, which Con claims to demonstrate further on within the section. Let’s explore the premises Juice sets for us here.
- “The term gender identity was first coined by sexologist John Money , who introduced the term in 1955 (It is worth noting that recent academic studies disapprove of Money’s work in many respects, particularly his involvement with the involuntary sex-reassignment of then child, David Reimer)”
The individual’s character and initial definition of gender do not matter we have updated definitions that we can address. As such this attempted red herring is dismissed, it is outdated and not at all relevant. To present the definitions in the description:
1. Gender - "refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity."
2. Sex - "refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex (i.e., atypical combinations of features that usually distinguish male from female). There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia"
- “First off, if gender is just something which occurs in the mind, and your gender disagrees with your sex, then why can’t you just change your mind? Surely that would be more logical to change your mind, instead of going through intense surgery and pumping yourself with hormones”
This is an inherently flawed question, as it applies a misunderstanding of what trans people are in the first place. As transquality.org notes: “ people's gender identity – their innate knowledge of who they are
”, so asking why they don’t just “change their mind” is similar to asking why homosexuals don’t just “change their mind”, its more nuanced than Con understands.
While the exact biological cause of gender identity is unknown, but this does not dismiss it as a valid term or “feeling” if my opponent would like the term more. Gender Identity is to Gender as balance is to currency. While currency is only a societal construct
one’s balance in the bank is a tangible thing that can be measured. In this analogy, the specific state of the gender of the individual is the balance of the bank account.
- making gender a thing of the mind is dangerous, as this would mean that it is only restricted by the capacity of your brain. In other words, I can change my gender as quickly as my brain can process information, and as many times as I please.
This is false, a blatant non-sequitur, where your body of information or premises, does not logically lead to your conclusion. In this case, something being of the mind does not necessarily equate to being able to change that thing. Such as one cannot simply choose what they find aesthetically appealing or, again, their sexuality. Just to justify that claim, kidsheatlh.org notes: “Being straight, gay, or bisexual is not something that a person can choose or choose to change. In fact, people don't choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their height or eye color
Essentially, the problem Con continues to fall in time after time, is that they assume that someone simply chooses their gender. They do not. If they could, they would, why is it logical that millions of people would simply not change their mind instead of going through discrimination, hate, and abuse? The answer, they wouldn’t!
The American Psychological Association
notes: “Gender identity
refers to a person’s internal sense of being male” This is like my internal sense of being a male, and my mother’s internal sense of being a female, the difference between us and a trans person, is that our gender matched the sex the doctors assigned us at birth, trans people didn’t.
- “However, one may reply with ‘you can’t just change your gender like that, it’s more than just a feeling, it’s something to do with your brain, it’s been with me since a young age’, and then proceed to pointing to the grey matter in a series of MRI scans. There’s a flaw with this reasoning, because if trans ideologist are pointing to brain scans to confirm the existence of gender, then gender must be biological, therefore shattering the difference between gender and sex.“
Again, Con’s understanding of sex and gender is naive and simplistic. What they are referring to here is gender identity, which has never argued to be strictly societal. Whenever someone applies something to the mind, they are simply saying activity or causations that are happening in the brain specifically. Technically, something of the mind is of the body, simply an extrapolation of the body.
Con then unhelpful provides a false dichotomy for the voters:
- “Either A) gender is in the mind and therefore I have the ability to change my gender as many times as I please, or B) gender is biological, removing my ability to change my gender as many times as I please.”
No one ever argued for the fact that you can change your gender as many times as you please, certainly not me, and this is assuming every case of gender identity is the same. It is true that certain people are gender fluid, as in, not one specific gender or another, but it is also true that people are male are in what you might call a, “female body”
Not to mention, two things can be biological can not directly correlated to each other, and there is another option. Namely, “People can not change their gender as many times as they want.” It seems that my opponent just does not understand what it is to be transgender, which is fine, but claiming that others aren’t because they do not understand is not justified.
My opponent ends this section on this note:
- “Without this distinction between sex and gender, a large number of trans ideologists arguments instantly go out the window. One such is the argument that “We are just changing our sex to match our gender”, which solely relies and this weak distinction”
This argument is based on strawmen, non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, and equivalences. The argument is not, “we change our gender” but “we change our sex to match our gender” which is precisely why Con is incorrect here. Perhaps it is unintuitive to Con, but once more this does not mean Con is justified in their argumentation.
3. Contradictions, illogical thinking and fallacies - The Rebuttal
For the purpose of character space, voter’s reading length, and our sanity, I will only quote the Con’s core point, but respond to the entire thing, this is simply alerting all readers to that fact.
- “Upon allowing individuals to pick and choose their own gender, the question of what exactly it take for someone to identify as the opposite sex arises”
As predicted, my opponent believes one chooses their gender, as I have already sources, they do not. One does not choose their own gender, their entire argument is based on a strawman. Con goes on to say that they can be completely female while “biologically” being male. This is not untrue, but as Gender Dysphoria
and Trans depression/suicide rates
suggest this is not to their advantage. It is of profound psychological damage to assert that they simply, “do not need surgery”
They go on to spread the strawman of what gender and sex are, completely ignoring gender identity and the complex nuances that differentiate them from one another.
- “Under the subtitle “How to change the gender on your birth certificate” the criteria to change your gender on your birth certificate”
Why does this matter? Just because something is legally restricted to a certain way, that does not mean that is true or untrue. They go on to rant about the things that one could change during the sex reassignment surgery, but completely ignores the fact that their source does not use the same definition of gender or sex.
The American Psychological association’s definitions, the association is accredited by the US Government and by the majority of psychologists, should be preferred to some random law under birth certificates. Con’s argument is not topical as their argument does not apply to the definition of sex or gender which Con has been unable to refute thus far.
- “Clearly, they believe that biology has some influence on gender, as they go to great extents to mimic their chosen gender.”
The entirety of the second “Contradiction” is simply not understanding gender and gender identity again, which I have already explained countless times, before this, to summarize: Gender is a societal construct, Gender identity is not inherently so. At this point, Con is starting to rephrase arguments and call it a day.
- “The whole argument is circular logic. I believe that I know what it feels like to be a women because I feel like a women so therefore, I am a women. It’s a fallacy”
This is the primary claim I wish to address, this is assuming that gender identity and sex are the same, they are not. Even if it wasn’t, “Because I feel like a woman” is an oversimplification of gender, but, in a sense, this isn’t untrue either. If you use the ship of Theseus. Or slowly replace parts of a proposition or claim in order to address this new claim, in other words, a straw man.
- “How can a man know that they are a woman?”
This entire questioning is one big appeal from ignorance fallacy on the part of Con, in other words, “I do not understand how a “man” could feel like a “woman” therefore this is a fallacy that they do. Con continues to use phrasing like, “a man feel like a woman” but this is not an accurate representation of transgender people. They are people who have the sex of a one and their gender identity contradicts that.
- “As I have stated, having anything which is restricted purely by the mind is dangerous. It means that peoples wildest imaginations are now real. “
I have already addressed the difficulty in these rebuttals, that thought exactly actually.
4. Foreseeable Rebuttals - Defense
Against Intelligence_06, I do not care.
- “To this, I introduce you to Naia Okami, the quotee of the iconic line "on all levels except physical, I am a wolf" . I could name a countless number of furies who wish they were a different animal.”
This is a supposed rebuttal to my statement on regressing to kangaroo’s but not only, do they not give the entire quote, but they also do not comprehend that “people” is applying to trans people in general, not one specific group of people. Con has not demonstrated anything.
- “Now, I throw the ball back to you. Since you believe there are no physical characteristics which define a man, what do you believe defines a man. In fact, using your logic, what do you believe defines a human being. What makes a human a human. My answer would be a generalisation of physical appearance, without needing to pin down one exact organ. What would yours be?”
This is in response to my bringing up intersex people, which I clarify further in the forum demonstrates that male and female aren’t the only standard sex is applied too, not that there are no physical characteristics that one can apply to one sex or the other, this is another strawman of my argument.
To answer your question a human is defined as follows: The species homo sapien, which has 23 chromosome pairings. Your question is not daunting, nor it is actually applicable, what it is is a red herring, but hey, you’ve only been gish galloping so far, why not throw in another fallacy?
5. The Options - The Rebuttal
- “Gender is purely in the mind and is a social construct”
All supposed implications of this option can be ignored. Why? Because Con once again does not understand what a mind is, and what a social construct is. They do not understand the difference between gender identity and gender. Social Construct does not equate to mind, and mind can indeed equate to biology, therefore their entire syllogism is false.
Second, no, species and biology do not equate, while something’s species is of their biology, they do not ideologically, physically, or mentally equate, this is yet another false equivalence. Con just continues to not understand the psychological impacts of having one’s sex match one’s gender identity.
- Gender and sex are in fact the same.
This is simply factually untrue. They go on to claim that one cannot distinguish between a man and a woman and uses a single doctor’s opinion on the matter to justify their claim, whereas I have an entire study demonstrating what they say I cannot prove.
They go on to claim that I have to cite multiple studies when I do not need to refute a single doctor’s opinion, they hype up their source a bit too much. I simply have the preponderance of evidence pointing to my fact as true, and Con’s as untrue, or nonapplicable or outdated.
Their next claim is laughable:
- “ Theoretically, if you were to raise a boy like a girl, they would identify themselves as a girl. “
Notice the “theoretically” as if this has not been tested *Hint hint - it has* According to a study noted in Psychology Today
that of the text group, only 11% who raised to be girls actually identified as girls. They had a female sex expression and everything, they were raised to be girls, dressed like it, everything, and they still identified as boys.
- “Now, according a trans ideologists, if Sujit, caught up in his own belief that he was a chicken, somehow communicated to surgeons that he wanted to undergo surgery, not only would that be a human right, but he literally become a chicken. “
This is a strawman, false equivalence, and a non-sequitur all in one. First of all, “Caught up in the belief that he was x” is not what trans people claim, therefore a strawman. Changing from one gender to the other is not at all the same as changing from one species to another. One is differentiated by a chromosome, one is differentiated by extreme phenotypes and chromosomes differences.
The rest of this is nothing more than a gish gallop on about how the “Trans Ideaoligst” will say this, and once again provide a strawman example which they do not even deconstruct correctly. If Con really wants a specific objection, ask, and ye shall receive.
I will not even deign the sixth section a separate category.
Ethnicity is differentiated by one’s history, culture, and pigment of the skin. To claim that changing one’s pigment of the skin is akin to changing one’s sex phenotypes is a false equivalence. They do not equate. Their is an actual scientific backing to gender identity, where there is none to ethnicity.
I have finally rebutted each section of Con’s argument, deconstructed why they are incorrect, and what fallacies they have made. I will now make my own constructive.
Since Con designed to apparently, “Copy and Paste” some arguments, I will give you one of my arguments on another debate to prove the ideal of transgenderism logically valid or consistent. My primary contentions are: Gender and Sex are not the same words, and one can be born different sex than their gender.
Transgenderism is Logically Consistent
I will introduce the idea of a syllogism into this debate.
- A syllogism is a formatted deductive argument, where each idea draws from the last to lead to a conclusion that logically follows.
- Whenever your premises lead to a conclusion that is the only logical conclusion one can draw from such premises, that argument is valid.
- Whenever each premise is factually correct as well as valid, the argument is sound.
Therefore, a sound and valid argument is an argument that all premises are true and where the premises logically justify the conclusion of the argument.
- P1: Gender and Sex are two different words that refer to different things
- P2: One’s gender is able to not be the same as the sex they are assigned at birth
- P3: If P1, P2, then transgenderism
- Con: Therefore, transgenderism is true
Recall; The definition of Transgender - from descriptions, In order for this definition to be true, all that needs to be true are sex and gender to be separate things, and for one to be able to have a different gender from the sex they are assigned
Demonstrating P1 & P2:
Demonstrating Premise 1 is actually very straight forward. All I must do is prove gender and sex different things.
- Recall; The definition of Gender - from the description
- The definition itself makes a distinction between sex and gender, and seeing as how Pro has not provided any valid definitions, the Voters should prefer Con’s definition’s inherently.
Perhaps that doesn’t convince you, the voter, however. You ask, “Why should we trust your definition at all?
- “The APA Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA) is recognized by both the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, as the national accrediting authority for professional education and training in psychology.”
Due to the psychological credence that is given to the APA, one should prefer their definitions to others, therefore my definition stands.
To Demonstrate premise 2
- The levels of specific hormones within the brain/body, especially in early development, are what primarily affect how people’s sex phenotypes. [x] [y]
- However, research has shown that these chemicals are not what impact someone’s gender identity. In essence - Physical evidence that gender doesn’t equal sex
- The study I cite says the following: “particularly ..but relatively minimal effects on gender identity.”
Note: These are drastically reduced arguments, but they do indeed demonstrate the logical consistency of transgenderism, and therefore fulfill my BoP, very concisely I must say as well.
A trans man is a man, just as a man is a man.
I have both rebutted my opponent’s case, and constructed my own, ensuring that my BoP was well fulfilled. Whereas Con has essentially argued from a giant strawman/gish gallop, ensuring that their BoP is unfulfilled. Thank you for your time,
Back to CON.