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

-->
@gugigor

Full respect for thinking someone ultimately won, and also that another vote in their favor was BS.

A lot of people can't accept that basic duality, and instead subscribe to bad virtue ethics.

-->
@zedvictor4

I'm not suggesting you use a million words. I'm not suggesting that you didn't read and judge appropriately. I am saying that you have to show how you evaluated some individual arguments in the debate and give some attention to specific points made by each side. That's part of the Voting Policy on this site. You don't have to like it, but if you want to vote, you must abide by it.

-->
@whiteflame

The debate was read and judged appropriately.

If I had presented a million word analysis, my vote would still have been the same.

Something of a sham voting system if all it takes to remove a vote is for someone to whinge.

It is the content of the debate that should be judged, not the content of the vote.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

Thank you.

-->
@zedvictor4
@Athias
@Theweakeredge

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: As one might of expected, technicality exceeded the necessity of "ought".
Though in the end stoicism triumphed over emotion anyway.
In all honesty, Pro shouldn't expect to win this particular contest. Hoisted by their own petard, as it were.

>Reason for Mod Action:
This is a vague justification for a vote. The voter simply says that certain general points won out over other points and claims that one side was "[h]oisted by their own petard," which doesn't sufficiently explain the decision. This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof).
**************************************************

-->
@Athias
@Theweakeredge
@gugigor

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro.
>Reason for Decision:
NOTE: This is a vote to TIE the debate. Feel free to delete this when Zed-victor's vote has been deleted.

RFD in comments
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39375
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2978/comment-links/39376

>Reason for Mod Action:
While attempting to counter a perceived vote bomb (which indeed is under review), you created such a clear vote bomb that it doesn't even need discussion in the moderator channel.

Seriously, just tag the vote moderators in a comment as a reminder of your report, and if you want to be really good about it say why you believe a vote falls short of the standard.

As is your vote violates the outside content clause, by being based upon another vote (even to counter it).
**************************************************

-->
@gugigor

Seldiora, I'm sure you've been told this numerous times, but I'll repeat it one more time. It is neither your responsibility nor your prerogative to regulate how one votes. If you have a problem with zedvictor's vote, then you report it. If your report receives no response, then you attempt to reach a moderator through direct message; if you don't reach a moderator through direct message, then you attempt to contact zedvictor and persuade him to provide a sufficient RFD, or have his vote removed. If none works, then you have to deal with it. You shouldn't vote against someone because you dislike someone else's vote. Your conduct is an example of the reason this voting system sucks, for lack of a better term.

Second, there's nothing scientifically substantial about PRO's argument. PRO attempts to make a correlation between the physical structure of the hypothalamic region of the brain and one's gendered identity. I asked him a simple question: "what is a 'gendered' identity?" He refused to answer this question because he and I both knew that his description would conform to gender and sex based stereotypes. Hence his oft repetition of gender being experienced "individually." But if gender is experienced individually, then his data is irrelevant since its metrics apply fixed sex-based categorizations and standards--i.e. male and female brains.

And you need to read more carefully: I stated twice the exclusions of this debate ("We ARE NOT arguing over "civil rights;" we ARE NOT arguing over the notion of "equality"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders "better" or "worse"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders with "respect" or a lack thereof; we ARE NOT even arguing over whether or not they are the "sex" with which they were born.") I haven't argued that the brain and mind causes an ambiguity to occur. I stated that the abstractness of the mind and the quality by which it is reflexively aware makes it impossible for it to conform to social grouping standards, much less biological ones. Identity is essentially an individual abstract and unique to each subject. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED all this.

"Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as."

Exactly. PRO never answers what it means to treat someone as the gender with which they identify. And he hasn't done so because, as I had already demonstrated, he couldn't even IDENTIFY what a gendered identity was.

Now I haven't blocked you this time out of courtesy. But the next time you indulge your personal crap in debates to which I'm party, I will. Enjoy the rest of your night, sir.

Con however counters that the hypothalamus functions does not mean there is a distinguishable gender identity. The loose connection with experiencing stress, depression, anxiety, etc. is not inherently associated with the "non-treatment as identification". He doesn't say it out right, but I understand he means that *mistreatment* (pro's case) is different from the respect of the gendered identity. He repeats that Pro is using strawmen, because the studies have "fixed standards of sex" -- therefore the individual experiences contradict such. Con seems to have missed out that the disrespect of transgender overall had led to the slippery slope of bullying and suicide, rather than the extremely specific use of pronouns. I cannot buy that Pro's case merely considers that the correct pronoun is used, as the treatment of transgender people includes acceptance of them as well. Con continues after pro's forfeit to say that the individual identity cannot be gendered. There is no clear standard since only the individual's identification can loosely highlight the gender.

Pro counters aggressively telling that the oxytocin with brain chemicals must form the identity. He adds that the brain matches the person's identification, clearing up any ambiguous standards. The experience did not lead to the change of gender. In addition, he adds that the psychology is inherent within the neurology, and that the comparisons means that the individuality must lead to the gender types. Finally, pro stands on the idea that gender is the exact experience of reality, rather than preference.

Con closes up by saying that the distinction between sex and gender were made. The implied conclusion of gender identity I buy, but he misses out in the psychology and neurology correlation. The idea is that the psychology can speak to how neurology can work. However, he comes back around to talking about how the specific wording of pronouns can't be equivalent to all the negative impacts that Pro lists. He tells them that the ending result is that the individual decision of gender is the way to go, and that there is still very little way to judge the standards of the transgender.

I have a bias towards pro's case, however, even setting aside what I already know, I can tell the two are talking over each other. Con tackles very basics and tries to argue the idea that the self identity must be separate from the biological sense. After all, we can only socially treat them as what they claim to identify as, regardless of what they actually are. However, Con doesn't seem to realize the power behind the biological evidence, and glances over by trying to muddle lines without telling us why the results don't matter. He says the hypothalamus doesn't clearly list the gendered trait, yet there is clearly dropped, the oxytocin and CRH evidence to demonstrate a role in maintaining the identity. On the other hand, Pro's case misses out on the "treatment as gender they identify as", partially losing to Con's reducto ad absurdum, without telling us why. Yes, it's basic manners without a clear cut impact. But give us the emotion. Tell us the story. Bring it whole and put a box around the mistreatment that you believe Con is vouching for. You put so much concentrated effort to demolish Con's basic mistakes that you didn't realize the Social Keypoint to the debate. Yes, I buy that you are winning scientifically. But are you winning socially? This is the key point to the debate.

Because there is only two days left and moderators do not seem to be able to review Zedvictor's poorly made vote, I will be using enough points to tie this debate. I can buy that Con is slightly winning in terms of the absurdity that the neglect of a person's pronouns would lead to horrifying impacts. Yet I can't buy that the biological support is unsubstantiated, especially since the psychological link is clearly there in the correlation. To con, I recommend him bring more juice to fully tell us just why the brain and the mind cause the ambiguity to occur. Tell us why this unclearness means that you can't treat people as they desire their identity to be. Tell me outright that Pro is mistaking Mistreatment (bullying, shaming) with mere impoliteness. Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as. Does this include Con's reducto ad absurdum? Why or why not? Make a stance. Tell me the principle of why it matters. Why the small details can gradually lead to disastrous results.

Pro opens up with a lot of scientific evidence backing the transgender people's brain identity, added with clear impact that stigmatizing them will lead to depression and suicide. This is an excellent opening, but opens up cans of worms to the interpretation of "treated as gender they identify as".

Indeed, as Con counters, the Hypothalamus function may not be mainly concerning identity, especially since the brain and mind may be separate. Secondly, Con tries to point out that the "individual" is more than just the personal experience, but also the values, emotions and perspectives. The idea that "desire to live" is conflicting with the example of "treating as someone's race" which may be confusing in the end. Con's argument is a muddled twister that's relatively complex and hard to untangle, so I'll try to explain more with round 2.

Pro continues the idea that the gender dysphoria is clearly regulated by CHR, with the key hormone for gender identity. Furthermore, he shows that it's responsible for the gender identity, which links to the idea that the gender is identifiable via the self. Thus, the con principle of abstract thought is too ambiguous. So the "emotional blackmail" works in a way that basically shows you can't accept the harm presented with the bullying. The denial of the personal identity can lead to the bullying and cause damage.

-->
@Bones

A vote is a vote and reflective of ones appreciation of both sides of the debate.

If it is a dissertation that is required, then give me a day or two.

If you are a discerning person, then you should understand the gist of my comments in relation to how the debate unfolded.

-->
@zedvictor4

I didn't read the debate, but I think a debate of this length deserves a bit more of a substantial vote than that.

*bump*

-->
@Athias

well then i guess i screwed up,
i dont hate french people btw

-->
@Aryanman

I'm French, too.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Not only did you forfeit a round, but you spent most of the last round attempting to insult me. And when I choose to present my affirmation of my counterargument is up to me, especially given that it had not violated your stipulation--the "second to last round" is NOT the last round. Furthermore, if you have failed to grasp the reason you have not and cannot meet your burden, then you have learned nothing. And it's apparent that you're not interested in learning the reason your point doesn't hold. Let the process play out, and disengage this useless contest of wit and stubbornness.

Thats not possible since Fauxlaw is french

-->
@Aryanman

I'd have to disagree, as someone who tangoed with Fauxlaw, he is a MUCH better debater than Athias - I think my point is made well enough, Athias liked to bring up brand new points on the second to last round - so yeah - even with that I still think he didn't do well.

Athias clearly won

bro he destroyed you

-->
@Theweakeredge

Well, I suppose that's something. Perhaps you could've "saved face" if you conceded rather than attempt insults. Enjoy your "hiatus," sir.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Come on that's kind of a dick move. You've quit debating, you're about to forfeit half of this debate and you're going to lose. Just quicken up the process.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede."

Then will you do me the courtesy of writing "something"--however you wish to phrase it--in order to expedite the conclusion of this debate, especially considering that you have no intention of seeing it through to the end?

-->
@Athias

If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"Nope - won't do that"

Am I to take it that you'll participate in the debate's next round (i.e. no forfeiture)?

-->
@Athias

Nope - won't do that

-->
@Theweakeredge

If you intend on conceding this debate, do me the courtesy of providing a short response of concession so that we may expedite the conclusion of this debate.

-->
@Theweakeredge

You've forfeited the third round. Is that a tacit concession to this debate?

Either way, I will still provide an argument for Round Three.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong."

Yes, I have my own onus. And I've chosen to negate your affirmation of the proposition by arguing in favor of individuality. That does not mean that every assertion you make stands until you're proven wrong. That's fallacious and I won't hesitate to point it out. I can criticize your assertions for their lack of substantiation (e.g. psychology = neuroscience) without providing a counterpoint. Pointing out and explaining the lack of substantiation is enough. My burden is to substantiate my negation of your affirmation. And I will proceed accordingly.

"There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled."

I wasn't referring to our onuses. I was referring to your argument. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Your supposed empirical arguments undermine your abstract arguments. But we'll flesh that out in Round Three.

-->
@Athias

Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong. That's explicit in the BoP of the resolution. There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in."

Not necessarily. You're operating under the impression that I first have to negate and argue a counterpoint to substantiate my objection. I don't have to prove you wrong; you have to prove you're right. And you have yet to do so. I'm negating your point by arguing in service of individuality, an argument you've unwittingly help me make. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. No worries, I'll make this explicitly clear in our next round.

-->
@Athias

Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in.

I’m not reading all of that. Who is winning?

-->
@Theweakeredge

Which of my arguments were "looser"? And did we debate this in the forums?

-->
@Athias

Wow - your arguments are even looser... I think you may be losing your touch Athias, your arguments in the forum were stronger than this.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I suppose time will tell. I'll point it out in my response.

-->
@Athias

Incorrect, I have not answered the questions in a way that satisfies you - I did indeed answer every question levied at me in the first round.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Interesting. But you have not answered my questions. Well, I'll respond soon enough.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?"

I don't have "a temper." My use of caps has nothing to do with "shouting." The comments section doesn't have an embolden function, so I instead use caps. In all cases, I use caps and the embolden function to emphasize a point, not to "shout" at what are essentially letters on a computer screen.

"Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this."

Where did I suggest this? Why would I bring up "treating worse," when I made sure to include it among the exclusions when first starting my argument?

"Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more."

Once again, I look forward to your attempt.

-->
@Username

Very true

-->
@Undefeatable

"Interesting for sure, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend going that route because of your line “distinctively male or female” and transference to philosophy, which is Edge’s forte. You probably have to bring it back to social theory or something to avoid getting refuted by Edge."

Edge doesn't have a monopoly on philosophical debate skills.

-->
@Athias

Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?

Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this. Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this"

You opened the door when you made reference to multiracial individuals experiencing low self-esteem as result of a government form. If they aren't "comparable," you have exhibited poor methods in demonstrating that. And I do understand, or at least grasp, that which you insinuate when you made reference to the hypothalamus, but IT'S UP TO YOU, AND YOU ALONE, to substantiate it's connection to and qualification of self-identification.

And if you read carefully, I did not "assume" you couldn't do this; I specifically stated that you have "yet" to do it. Again, I welcome your attempt.

-->
@Athias

Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this - furthermore: I was referring to your argument of functions regarding the hypthalmus. Though that is also extremely superficial - you are not thinking internally at all with this - only on your own assumptions.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable

It's neither "weak" nor "superficial." I would intend for nothing more than to avoid a contest over sources, especially one where the citations are irrelevant and inapplicable. And no, my response wasn't "semantic," (which by the way is a useless jab given that the setting demands that we stipulate the definitions on which we base our arguments.) It's conceptual. For example, if I were to propose, "A person is their 'race,' and ought to be treated as the so-called 'race" with which they identify" the first begged question would be "how is this self-identification with this so-called 'race' identifiable to others?" And the second question is "how does one treat another in accordance to their self-identification with their so-called 'race?" So, how does one identify another's self-identification with gender, not sex? How does one treat another in the appropriate manner, keeping that self-identification with gender in mind? How do we standardize and/or normalize this response? You will have to answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P., or more to the point, I will make sure to demand that you answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P.

-->
@Undefeatable

The transfer to philosophy is fine. The resolution to his proposition is necessarily abstract. Theweakeredge attempted to elide this in his attempt to link the physicality of the brain to one's sense of self. I have no intention of regurgitating other people's opinions, i.e. citing social theory. The route I've chosen is to compel my opponent to resolve his resolution by identifying the object of his prescriptive response. I welcome his attempt at refutation.

-->
@Undefeatable

I mean, there's that, but I was primarily referring to how superficial his arguments are. If I don't have to do any more research to rebuke someone, then that rebuttal isn't all that strong. I'll do more regardless - but the core rhetoric here is largely semantic, which, doesn't surprise me.

-->
@Athias

Interesting for sure, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend going that route because of your line “distinctively male or female” and transference to philosophy, which is Edge’s forte. You probably have to bring it back to social theory or something to avoid getting refuted by Edge.

-->
@Athias

hm, interesting for sure... but weaker than I expected.

that's a lotta bold

-->
@Theweakeredge

First, you haven't seen anything from my arguments, because I've yet to submit one. Second, I do not need to "debunk" your argument, because you already have. I continue to drop hints, but I won't spoon-feed it to you. I'll say it again: remember your proposition; remember your definitions; remember your burden. Once you've appreciated exactly that which your proposition conveys, you'll realize that your burden is far more difficult than you thought. And it can't be resolved by neurological studies, or threats of suicide, and the like. But I'll make sure to explicitly point out the flaws in your argument once I've submitted my post.