Instigator / Pro
4
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Topic
#2978

THBT: Trans-people are, and ought to be treated, as the gender they identify as

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Athias
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Description

Trans - "used to describe someone who feels that they are not the same gender (= sex) as the physical body they were born with:" [A]
Gender - " the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female" [B]
Treat - "to behave toward someone or deal with something in a particular way:" [C]
Identify - "to recognize a problem, need, fact, etc. and to show that it exists:" [D]

[A] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/trans
[B] - https://dictionary.apa.org/gender
[C] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/treat?q=treated
[D] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/identify

General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared

-->
@Athias

From what I've seen of your arguments, I'll be surprised if you can fulfill your own BoP, much less debunk mine.

-->
@bmdrocks21
@Theweakeredge

The focus of this debate isn't whether sexual dimorphism has been observable since the early Greeks. Theweakeredge, remember your proposition; remember your definitions; remember your burden. The early Greeks won't help, and neither will your citations referencing the minute structural differences in the brain structures of transgendered individuals. Perhaps in the intermittent period, it'd be more prudent to go over your description as well as your argument again.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I suppose the debate will prove or disprove that. I will keep my eyes peeled.

-->
@bmdrocks21

False - gender identity has been an observable phenomenon since the greeks originally identified sexual dimorphism in humans. Furthermore, I empirically prove that the minute brain differences in brain structure between males and females exist in transgender individuals - despite the fact that these differences are so minuscule.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Well there really wasn't such a thing as "gender identity" until some pervert psychologist had a boy's genitals cut off and forced him to rehearse sexual acts with his twin brother.

Maybe some day we'll have a similar event for those suffering from limb dysphoria. Then they can cut off their limbs without fear of persecution.

And I'm certain there is some real damage done when now-infertile people realize that they aren't "transgender" and made a really stupid decision at 18 years-old (or younger depending on your state) -well before their brain is done forming.

-->
@bmdrocks21

The two don't correlate - there is such thing as a gender identity - there is no such thing as a "limb identity" there is a difference - to deny gender-affirming care has been empirically proven to do intense psychological harm to these people

-->
@Theweakeredge

If I tell my doctor that I hate my hands, that my hands make me uncomfortable, and that I identify as a handless person, do you think they should chop off my hands?

Because if so, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on genital mutilation for the sake of "gender affirmation".

-->
@bmdrocks21

The rates have generally increased, why? Because of the changing legal definition of sexual harassment, it happens to be the case that more harassment is actually reported, thereby increasing the amount of total sexual harassment, its the same thing as the rape statistic in Sweden.

You do realize that no - giving them *more* hormone of the sex you've assigned will not help them, empirically refusing gender-affirming treatment, makes it *worse* you are so confused and biased that you don't even realize that doctors are fixing the problem in their bodies to match their mind - as all treatment is, not the other way around.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Well I'm seeing numbers that sexual harassment levels have stayed stagnant since the 1980s, despite having an enormous increase of women in executive roles(40% reported harassment). That being said, the numbers in studies go from like 20%-60%, so who knows. However, if we are assuming that men sexually harass women because they have power and there isn't a hormonal reason, are we to assume that women, if given power, would sexually harass men?

And you see, you are again drawing a false equivalence. A real equivalence to the depression treatment would be for a man with low testosterone to be given testosterone supplements. His body is BIOLOGICALLY supposed to have certain levels of something, but it doesn't have the right amount. Similarly, we are biologically supposed to have certain levels of serotonin to regulate our moods, which sometimes fails, so we are given supplements.

Conversely, a BIOLOGICAL teenage girl who may be confused by your propaganda or who just has an identity disorder related to their gender is not supposed to have the same levels of testosterone as a teenage boy. There is no psychological amount of testosterone to have- psychology is irrelevant for healthy hormone levels. Just because they may think they should have something doesn't mean they should have it. If a kid wants ice cream for dinner, you should not give it to them because it is unhealthy. Similarly, you shouldn't give kids hormone levels that will screw up their development, since that is also unhealthy

But go ahead, chemically castrate mentally ill people by pumping them with hormones and mutilating their genitals to own us bigoted conservatives.

@TheWeakerEdge

I agree with you because the only person directly harmed or helped by transgender operations and unnatural hormone levels is the transgender individual. Therefore, if they're happier with the hormone levels that differ to their biological level (which is actually medically necessary in some extreme cases of very masculine women or vice versa who are cis and seeking treatment) then let them. If they want to destroy their genitalia under the knife and FULLY understand the implications (which I don't support anyone under 18 understanding, I would actually make it 21+ but 18 is fair enough) then let them go ahead. At the very least let them finish puberty before altering their hormones so such a severe level to play the role of a gender.

As a psychiatrist or therapist, I would certainly opt for indulging in their safe fantasies and 'delusions' so long as it makes them happy and mentally healthy. This is true for many other scenarios. The reason we can't let certain schizophrenics stay delusional is due to how severely harmful their delusions are to others when acted out on (or themselves if self harm and suicide are on the table).

I would not say that honesty is always necessary from a therapist or psychiatrist at all, your professional feedback to a patient needn't be your 100% honest take, it needs to be what will best help that patient get mentally healthy and happy. If the act and transition isn't hurting the patient, let them safely indulge, genuinely. After all our 'real self' always involves some degree of fantasy and opinion (as opposed to fact) from our own perspective, they just happen to perceive their biological sex as an unwanted factor in who they really are.

-->
@bmdrocks21

"I didn’t think what I said pertained to the debate. That being said, I haven’t read any arguments yet, so it could have"

Not everything, but there were some interesting morsels in there.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"I think your grasping at straws - it doesn't take into account my response at all"

No, I am not. I said "tidbit." I don't agree with everything bmdrocks21 said, but there's an astute query present which even if you did your due diligence to find would still not change your capacity to resolve it. It would behoove you to read over his statements, again.

-->
@bmdrocks21
@Theweakeredge

This would be a juicy match up of the if you two brawled it out.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Um... no - I think the fact that men typically run STEM institutions perpetuates the problems of women being sexually harassed... curiously the more women serve towards the top of a company the less sexual harassment that women suffer overall in that company. Its almost like there's an obvious correlation between men and sexually harassing women.

Oh! Look at this! You've got it! Way to go bud! That's right, the body fails at regulating a certain thing, and as a consequence, the individual suffers. You wanna know why that's not a false equivalence in regard to trans-gender people? Because their bodies also fail at regulating their hormones - these people do not "think they are *insert their gender*" they *know* so - in the same way you or I could say that we were our own gender - see - psychiatrist gives them gender-affirming care to fix the body's mistake - just like depression pills!

Its like you are so incredibly biased against a certain outcome you didn't realize the super obvious analogy right in front of your face.

-->
@Theweakeredge

You think that because men used to run things that women get sexually harassed? Nothing to do with different sex hormones affecting inappropriate sexual expression?

I never projected any beliefs onto you. I doubt you would consider yourself a "liberal". And sure, maybe almost nobody says "men and women are exactly the same", but when you listen to your arguments, there are only two inferences you can make: either they think that men and women would have the same exact outcomes and any disparity is because of oppression (the looney egalitarian option) or they are arguing in bad faith because they want special treatment.

I think that the depression treatment is certainly a false equivalence. The solution for depression is a pill that reduces uptake of serotonin, which the body is supposed to regulate naturally, but it is failing.

However, what are the supposed "treatments" for transgenders? Mutilate their genitals or pump their body with hormones in levels way over the dose they should have.

The way to deal with a mentally ill person is not to feed into their delusions. If some schizophrenic thinks they are Ted Kaczynski, you don't play along and say "Yes you are. Now go mail explosives to people". Similarly, if some 16 or 18 year boy old is like "I wanna chop my d*ck off because I think I'm a woman", you don't say "sure, go ahead, bud. You're so brave and special!"

-->
@Athias

I didn’t think what I said pertained to the debate. That being said, I haven’t read any arguments yet, so it could have

-->
@bmdrocks21

"I don't think this was really a strawman on your part, Alec. They argue that any difference in earnings is due to sexism and any difference in activity (spending more time with kids) is all part of some conspiracy that forces women to act a certain way. Essentially: women and men would do the exact same thing (go into STEM at same rates or whatever) and achieve the exact same outcomes(would work same amount of hours, take same time off, earn same amount, etc.) if it weren't for "muh evil patriarchy"."

Um... in a sort? Obviously you state in a way to be ridiculed, and no feminists believes that all women would act the same as men, but... you know - if there wasn't a patriarchy, perhaps women wouldn't be sexually harrassed at a significantly greater rate than men? This really has nothing to do with the point - the point here is that nobody believes men and women to be the exact same, we expect them to be treated the same legally and socially - and I already responded with that, but here you are strawmanning your "libtard"

"Then they act like there is some huge distinction to be made if some mentally ill person thinks they are a woman or a man when they aren't. Next, they say that calling them those now meaningless terms ('man' or 'woman' because what tf is a man or woman these days?) against their preference is "hate speech".... because it is a meaningful term with consequences now...."

A mentally ill person, eh? So, when someone's depressed the doctor's give them medicine to make them less depressed, right? How come the doctors give people with gender dysphoria hormones, making their bodies more like their "mental illness" - because its not a mental illness- gender identity is more you than your gametic phenotypic expression ever could be. You are making a false equivalence buddy.

-->
@Athias

I think your grasping at straws - it doesn't take into account my response at all

-->
@bmdrocks21

There's a very astute tidbit in your statements, there, bmdrocks21. I wonder if it will present any concerns for my opponent as this debate progresses.

-->
@TheUnderdog

"Liberals:

Men and Women are basically the same in every way.

Also liberals:
Trans women are women and calling a trans women a women is very different from calling them a man because men and women are different.

Me: You contradicted yourself."

I don't think this was really a strawman on your part, Alec. They argue that any difference in earnings is due to sexism and any difference in activity (spending more time with kids) is all part of some conspiracy that forces women to act a certain way. Essentially: women and men would do the exact same thing (go into STEM at same rates or whatever) and achieve the exact same outcomes(would work same amount of hours, take same time off, earn same amount, etc.) if it weren't for "muh evil patriarchy".

Then they act like there is some huge distinction to be made if some mentally ill person thinks they are a woman or a man when they aren't. Next, they say that calling them those now meaningless terms ('man' or 'woman' because what tf is a man or woman these days?) against their preference is "hate speech".... because it is a meaningful term with consequences now....

So, you said what liberals think, but I'll make it more concise:

Libs: *incoherent jibberish and reeing*
Rational people: men and women are different and you can't change what you are just because you want to and feel "different"

-->
@Theweakeredge

"Well, he's probably going to argue that nobody owes anybody any obligations - maybe he'll talk about the part before that - but he's gonna focus on the moral obligation bit.

I think - and don't quote me here - that his position as an individualist means that moral obligations aren't a thing."

I could argue that, but that isn't the biggest problem in your argument.

-->
@Undefeatable

"Interesting... so it would be like saying a non scientific topic that is heavily resolved, but doesn’t mean that people should treat it a specific way."

It isn't about whether the scientific topic is resolved. Notice his definitions, and notice his argument. Is gender, for example, necessarily "scientific"? And if it's not, then what's the relevance of scientific analysis? When one prescribes that one be treated a PARTICULAR WAY, that begs a question, doesn't it? I can't reveal everything, but dig deeper.

-->
@Undefeatable

Well, he's probably going to argue that nobody owes anybody any obligations - maybe he'll talk about the part before that - but he's gonna focus on the moral obligation bit.

I think - and don't quote me here - that his position as an individualist means that moral obligations aren't a thing.

-->
@Athias

Interesting... so it would be like saying a non scientific topic that is heavily resolved, but doesn’t mean that people should treat it a specific way.

-->
@Athias

I wasn't specifically trying to counter you - though I do see why you would think that - I was in general making an argument that was harder to crack in general. I pretty much expected you to attack the "and ought to be treated as such", you are still an individualist right? So I'd figure you would go against that.

-->
@Undefeatable

"but... if Transgender right arguments are psychological/neurological, what's the difference between evidence for evolution and evidence for transgender?"

Again, this is not about Transgender "rights." We are not arguing over their legal privileges or any deprivation with respect to the Constitution--or any other nation's itemized list of recognized rights. It's about substantiating whether a trans person is who said person identifies as, AND the extent to which they are owed behavior from others that reflects this identification.

This is the difference between legally recognizing "gay marriage" and prescribing that Christians, who for the sake of argument, "treat" homosexual unions as anything other than an "abomination." That is not the same. I'm focusing strictly on the proposition. I'm not focusing on the psychology/neuroscience (by the way pyschology =/= neuroscience) nor am I focusing on Evolution.

-->
@Athias

but... if Transgender right arguments are psychological/neurological, what's the difference between evidence for evolution and evidence for transgender?

-->
@Theweakeredge

I assume you wouldn't. Why then would you have argued in that manner if you realized your mistakes beforehand?

You were so focused on arguing cosmetically, and arguing against arguments yet to be made that you've considered neither the complexity nor nuance of this issue. You may assume that my response to you is going to be "No, trans-people are not, and ought not to be treated as the gender which they identify as." Not necessarily. There's more than one way to negate the affirmation of your proposition, and you'll see it once I respond.

-->
@Undefeatable

"In my opinion, that would still be similar to saying "we ought to treat Evolution as True", which is only one step away from "evolution is true"."

Except the veracity of (place scientific concept or phenomena here) is not contingent on how it's "treated." It's contingent on its capacity to be verified scientifically. That is not the same, however many "steps" your opinion considers. Again, as a surveillant, you must be conscientious about the arguments being made, not your impressions.

-->
@Athias

I'm glad you took the time to check through it, but I largely disagree with your anyalsis.

-->
@Undefeatable

To me, it's absolutely fine to be trans, the issue is when it becomes taboo to discuss what your biological sex is (not just was, still is). If we are allowed to discuss that, while respecting the gender role you are partaking in as a separate concept and topic, then we'd find far less conflict between different takes on trans people. The problem is when it becomes totally taboo to even admit and discuss biological sex, which seems to be where some radical trans activists are trying to move all science and society towards (EVEN SPORTS). There has to be a line in the sand, eventually it must be drawn.

-->
@Athias

In my opinion, that would still be similar to saying "we ought to treat Evolution as True", which is only one step away from "evolution is true". I'm interested in your rebuttals though, so go ahead with your round.

-->
@Undefeatable

"to Athias: I've done enough research to know that Pro Trans Right arguments are as rigorous as the evidence for theory of Evolution, if not Anti-Flat Earth or Pro-Old Earth theory."

Except the subject of this debate isn't Pro vs Anti Trans "Rights," whatever those are supposed to be. It's "Trans-people are, and ought to be treated, as the gender they identify as." So the questions which must be resolved are: (1) Are trans people the gender to which they identify? and (2) Are they owed a response which reflects the gender to which they identify?

"This is gonna be a really, really hard debate."

Actually, it won't be. As thoughtful and meticulous as Theweakeredge was, his Round 1 argument is largely unfocused. He has issues with his definitions, there's a lot of irrelevant fluff, his syllogism is nonsensical, there is a conflict in the proposition itself, and he employs emotional blackmail to substantiate his claim that others have an obligation to treat trans people as their identified gender otherwise they'll "kill themselves."

His strongest argument perhaps is in the comparison between brain structures, but because of his definitions, it's irrelevant. Undefeatable, if you're going to be a conscientious surveillant, then you must understand that which is being argued.

I still have some time, so I'll respond at my leisure.

You already dignified me with a response.

Are... you actually thinking through the positions here? DId you even look at my response? Have you? Because until you do I won't dignify you with a response.

TheUnderdog did strawman you, edge, however his core point/logic is that if men aren't different to women why is it different to call a trans person by the wrong gender?

I don't agree with where he's going with that, I just follow the logic. I'd definitely counter him based on respecting the trans individual's right to be happy and left in peace.

-->
@Athias
@Theweakeredge

to Edge: Woo! That's a pretty strong opening if I do say so myself.

to Athias: I've done enough research to know that Pro Trans Right arguments are as rigorous as the evidence for theory of Evolution, if not Anti-Flat Earth or Pro-Old Earth theory. This is gonna be a really, really hard debate.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Sometimes I assume too much. It would have been weird if I asked you, "Do you think males and females are the same and think transwomen are women?" That's just cringy to say unironically.

-->
@TheUnderdog

Then ask what my position is. Just ask

-->
@Theweakeredge

I don't deliberately strawman.

RMM

-No, no it is not a valid point - its a strawman.

-->
@TheUnderdog

That is a valid point.
I explore that concept a lot in my debate with weakeredge at the moment, regarding feminism and the dissolution of gender and biological sex contradicting it.

-->
@TheUnderdog

TheUnderdog: Makes wide generalizations which are also strawmen

Also TheUnderdog: Doesn't stop when people debunk him

I do not think men and women are the same in every regard - I think the roles which they are held too are largely arbitrary, and have no room in a society where we have the ability to go beyond our base abilities- I believe that men and women ought to be treated the same - and that insofar as value goes - they are the same. Of course there are differences, but I am arguing that that difference is psychological and neurological, and only superficially anatomical. Please reframe from making strawmen on topics which you are not educated on.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Liberals:

Men and Women are basically the same in every way.

Also liberals:
Trans women are women and calling a trans women a women is very different from calling them a man because men and women are different.

Me: You contradicted yourself.

-->
@Athias

Indeed - the "and ought to be treated" part was to give me a very large BoP - I'm pretty sure that's the bit your referring too as well

-->
@Intelligence_06

Reading the proposition, the subject is not as clear-cut the "Holocaust's being bad" or the universe's being a tetrahedron. But I suppose I'll just have to demonstrate that when the debate begins.

-->
@gugigor

There is no way I can win a debate when my whole mindset is telling me no. It is like debating that Holocaust wasn't bad at all or the world is a triangular prism.

-->
@gugigor

Imabench/Mikal, Bluesteel/Raisor, even Intelligence/Benjamin aren't I. Sit back and watch me work.

-->
@Intelligence_06

you just said "agreed" rather than making a kritik (see your Earth age debate against Undefeatable)

-->
@gugigor

"Intelligence/Benjamin hesitated to make a weird kritik of this topic."

When did I