Instigator / Pro
0
1629
rating
348
debates
65.66%
won
Topic

If we fully deny that biological sex is attached to gender, as well as deny that there are 2 of them (as opposed to 0 or infinite), we cannot properly uphold the cause of Feminism.

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
0
1730
rating
30
debates
85.0%
won
Description
~ 624 / 5,000

Full self-identification as male or female (or one of these genderfluid variants) doesn't take away from the fact that being born female-sex puts you at a societal and statistical disadvantage.

You cannot fight patriarchy if you deny there are two sexes (which link to gender-based oppression that affects girls from a very young age but don't affect males the same way).

Also, the struggle of trans people is a separate, unique kind of suffering that has different 'beef' and issues with the patriarchy and bigotry, than cis-females have (for different reasons, this applies both to childhood, adolescence and adulthood).

Round 1
Pro

Feel free to play it on Loop and take a deeper listen once you've gotten over the harsh language.

==

Disclaimer, I am a male being.

I do not pretend to be female but I absolutely consider myself to be a feminist and have noticed and pushed against innate patriarchal concepts and tendencies within my own self. All men do have it especially during their teenage years, it's more than a superiority complex, it's both based on what other males pressure each other to be during childhood as well as due to other reasons, such as what society itself has forced females to portray themselves as (especially in the past but even now, today).

I don't hate my masculinity, I just don't pretend it's my salvation. It's there, my tesosterone and aggression that results from it is real and is only toxic if I don't give it healthy outlets as well as embrace my feminine, sensitive side, which all men do have.

==

How to start this topic? Hmm, what is Feminism?

One of the most difficult aspects of this topic is how to broach the subject at hand. Do I explore Trans movement or Feminism first? Since I'm the one advocating they're somewhat mutually exclusive, doesn't it mean I oppose trans rights?

Not really, no. TERF is a term that's been twisted out of proportion for disproportionate virtue signalling in this day and age. One of my single favourite authors (let alone Feminists) of the modern age, JK Rowling, recently was 'cancelled' for having a stance that shocked many. Her original Tweet was actually possibly an accident with regards to the transphobic element of it. 

I will let my opponent doing the 'callout' section on her, I will quote her, herself, speaking on the topic:
It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

I post this to show something my opponent may dismiss; that this is a real issue, that the clash is 100% present and that it isn't some edge underground movement. Prominent females including JK Rowling have faced severe obstacles in their career as a result of taking the core stance that a person born male sex can't just wear feminine clothing and inject/ingest oestrogen-based substances to claim to be a 'woman' in the true sense of the term. Conversely, they claim people born female cannot just do the reverse and escape the patriarchy, instead any privileges and ease in life trans men experience is merely proof of patriarchy if anything or is at the very least a separate debate altogether.

To be clear, I do not oppose the right of Trans people to explore their sexual identity and not be bullied for it. Instead, I think that if sex and gender are separate (which Con absolutely has to agree they are) that the link between them shouldn't be ignored. I also don't have a clue where people began to come up with the notion that there aren't only 2. There are only 2 indeed, however not all within 'male' or 'female' are equally masculine or feminine respectively. That is the part that is important to grasp and understand. The term 'sexism' has never been and will hopefully never be confused with 'transphobic' or 'gender supremacist' because it indeed always referred to biological females being repressed from ancient times through to now.

Feminism has never been (until very recent years) a cause for the social 'gender' woman, if anything they agreed with trans people to begin with that the gender females have to fit into is far too sexist and brutally unfair. The idea of a cooking, cleaning careerless housewife not simply as the 'norm' nor even as an option but as the absolutely correct endgame for all females to strive for is what feminists felt disgusted with, quite rightly so.

This was there for centuries, long before we even had official rooms called kitchens to chain women to. Our species had aggressive males who were briliant at hunting, fighting and carrying heavy things, to be the defenders and providers while the females did the cooking, cleaning, caring and maintaining of peace within tribes/clans.

This was fine back when it was indeed absolutely necessary. This was a time where we were genuinely too ignorant to realise a masculine female or feminine male is fine to be that way (but is still a female or male). This was a time where if males weren't indulging in their testosterone and brutality, they'd insufficiently provide for and defend their tribe/clan from other brutal male invaders/attackers.

No feminist until very recent times, denied what most women were good at nor what most men were good at. Instead, they noticed during World War II, in the UK and France especially, that while the men were out at war, it shocked many women just how capable and fulfilled they were doing the jobs within companies and in almost all lines of work (except hard manual labour, though some well-built women excelled there of course) and when the males returned from the war, not only were they extremely tired and injured but there were physically less of them than originally (yes, they died) so they literally had to concede to females to let them keep most of the jobs they had. 

Did all women keep their jobs? No, that isn't what Feminism is supposed to be about. If you feel fulfilled in a very committed relationship with a man who is a proud breadwinner and both of you feel truly happy, that is fine. Feminism never was about denying what a very feminine woman is, nor what a very masculine man is. It is about realising that not all males want the same in life and that they do indeed want to break down and cry (which again, post-WWII, became a hot topic as many had PTSD and had to admit how emotional they were if they didn't want to stay hostile and unbearable to live with). Conversely, females can be extremely tough, resilient and 'masculine'. 

Feminists and LGBTQ found an alliance from very early on post-WWII to this very day. They both resented the patriarchy and worldwide had to fight against the same brutal Conservative prevalance that favoured the heterosexual male (not always Caucasian male in some countries but consistently heterosexual males). This alliance was extremely strong among lesbians, who had every reason to support both but of course many other reasons too and one of them became transsexuals (which are actually transgenders because you can never genuinely change your 'sex' and this is how and why the term 'transgender' replaced it quite rightly so).

The Trans movement saw a lot of aligned agenda with Feminists further down the line, since both opposed toxic masculinity and the ridiculous amount of things societies attribute as things only men could have done but which blatantly could have been done by females had they had the opportunities, in the past. Furthermore, both loathed the still-present disadvantages and glass ceilings that there were to females in all walks of life. The 'gender pay gap' is much more stark and undeniable at the very top of corporations and their rankings where not only are there barely any females present but they tend to get short-changed in negotiated salaries (where there aren't fixed wages, each higher ranking person negotiates their salary at higher ranks and this is where they kept getting cheated, it was also a racism issue but definitely a feminist one regardless).

Speaking of corporations and affirmative action, what happens when you have trans women in your corporation? Do you count them as 'women' in the true data? This is an extremely important and highly controversial thing to ask and admit. If we are seeking to make females equal to males (sexes, since we are fighting sexism not 'genderism'), what do we count trans people as in affirmative action quotas? This has legal repercussions for corporations if they meet or don't meet it and is one of the most efficient ways for governments to 'force equality' to start happening in an unequal society.

This was of course not a major issue early on, since earlier on trans people were essentially drag queens or females who cut their hair short and had a butch sense in fashion, meaning both identified as the same 'gender' as their 'birth sex' would imply. A drag queen would admit 'he' was a 'he' quite happily/readily when asked and a butch dressing female would do the same with 'she'. The prounouns actually were a source of pride and happiness for both. The idea being liberating what it meant to be a man or woman. A man could dress in a skirt, wear lipstick and be proud of his cock and masculinity regardless. A woman could cut her hair short, wear a shirt instead of a blouse, wear trousers, be assertive and proud of her vagina regardless. That was the original reason feminism and trans movement found perfect alignment.

This is not a fictional story I am telling you, I will happily reference and prove anything Con thinks I'm twisting, I am talking to you in a storytelling manner so you begin to understand what the issue has become and what I am leading to as not being ignorant at all, I have studied the history, I understand the original alliance between feminism and LGBTQ.

The reason feminists fought so hard for women to have the right to vote is that those who had vaginas, who experience periods, who had XX chromosomes, were disallowed to vote. The reason feminists fought so hard for women to be able to work the same careers, to get the same level of education as men, was because XX chromosome individuals didn't get it. The reason feminists then pushed harder in the other direction was actually to liberate men, not just women.

Men had to be 'hardcore' no crying, no sensitivity, gay men who were the more 'flambouyant' type especially found huge alliance with feminism. Freddie Mercury redefined what being masculine even meant: https://www.artefactmagazine.com/2019/02/13/freddie-mercury-redefined-rock-masculinity/. Metal bands and other Rock artists had already begun exploring longer hair, more 'feminine' clothing in general, even wearing mascara and truly embracing the fusion of genders, it could even be said that Rock and its 'sibling genre' Metal really revolutionised feminism and transsexuality in general as even the most extremely masculine of them began to explore and embrace feminine aspects of being. Some of them exploring Satanism also brough up interesting ideas as they challenged the idea God was male at times (but that's been done in pop and other genres too). The real question is what Freddie Mercury's presence did to the entire idea. He didn't have long hair and didn't really wear that much blatant makeup, he was simply openly gay, flambouyant, very 'funky' with his fashion sense and emotional in ways male celebrities never dared to be prior to him. You suddenly had this sappy, emotional guy who truly embraced his feminine side. It inspired others to do the same. 

What happened is great, I am not here to oppose males exploring their sensitive, emotional side. Not at all. I am here to say they are male. I am here to say that when we have males posing as females to compete with them in sports and grab medals away, that is not fair, that is not 'feminism' that is a clash of interests.


This isn't an easy topic, however it's one that we do have to address as a society. We are not empowering 'females' anymore, we are empowering anyone who wants to be called 'she/her' even if they experience male privilege their entire childhood and adolescence. What is male privilege? In some countries it's gotten very minimised relative to others but it's basically to do with the fact that society has (or at least had) many apparatus, from education access through to 'who you got to know as a friend in university' that favoured males even when superficially things appeared equal in opportunity. This is becoming much better over time. The bias and 'rigging against' females is improving in nations trying to do so. That is fantastic but once we begin to count people who were born male and want to be called she/her as female and let them rob females of world records and medals, what is that? I wonder why trans men are not wanting to be identified as their trans gender in sports.

Some have, this 'man' truly is trying to:


However, I want to ask you some things here.

What is feminism? If it's not about fighting against obstacles to let the sexes be equal to each other (against sexism) then what is it?

Egalitarianism is a nice enough synonym, which includes the 'other way around' but what is Feminism? What is it females are trying to be equal to in Feminism if it isn't males?

==

Second line of attack; transgenderism is actually conceding to gender roles (think about it, just a moment).

A very, if not extremely, ironic aspect of transgender identity is that it isn't genderqueer identity. While people who identify as 'they/them' come under the trans blanket of LGBTQ, they are actually the Q (queer) not the T. A person who has 'transitioned' went from the gender associated with their birth sex to the other/opposite one.

Men become women or women become men, that is the entire way that 'transitioning' was the word that later was shortened to 'trans' evolved. The issue is that the movement is getting more severe, even sinister in a sense. When someone hates their body to the level they want to pay a surgeon to mutilate their genitalia beyond recognitin and also beyond any positive use, in order to mimic that of the other biological sex, we are not allowed to say they have issues with their self-esteem, nor are we able to suggest they get psychiatric care. On the other hand, these same people are able to admit they have a mental disorder 'gender dysphoria' in order to justify you leaving them alone. I do not have an issue with leaving them alone, I don't want at all to bully someone who is so insecure and unhappy with their body. Instead, I want to help them love their body and birth sex.

You see, I don't want to bully and pressure a trans woman to deny his femininity. He is a male, he was born female but because of his gender dysphoria, we call him 'she/her' and allow him to play into the gender role of a female woman (I say female woman where the 'female' applies to birth sex and woman to gender) as opposed to a male woman. Equally, we allow a trans man the right to deny she is a female and that her birth sex was male because she has gender dysphoria. Okay, so I do actually have an issue with both, why can't the trans woman admit 'she' s a very feminine male? Why can't the trans man admit 'he' is a very masculine female?

I will tell you why. It is because they both have ironically caved in and enabled gender roles by what they've done. Instead of going 'I am a male who likes my hair long and to wear makeup and watch chick flicks and do things many females do' this male-sex individual has gone and said 'I am a female because I do these things that society has branded as something women do and I want you to accept me for doing them so please call me she/her'. This individual probably experiences a lot of bullying and teasing for being as feminine as they are (sometimes by females, not just males and sometimes their own parents). So, they seek to transition in order to escape the hellish situation, they seek to blend in with the other gender by taking hormones and undergoing plastic surgeries of varying complexities to pass as that gender. 

On the other side we have female-sex individuals who feel so insecure that they're a person born with a vagina and breasts that they start off doing things like wearing super tight bras to hide their breasts and training themselves to talk much deeper. They feel so insecure of their masculine tendencies and habits (maybe they love sports, working out, gaining muscle and are teased brutally for it, maybe they are really good at 'masculine' subjects and again socially excluded and teased for it). So, instead of fighting society, they cave in and beg them to accept them for the 'man' they wish to be.

The irony isn't a funny kind of irony. It's sad, extremely so and if I am transphobic for being so empathetic and concerned for these individuals then I am confused what the word even means. I want them to learn to say "I am an XY, male and I am very feminine and like to wear makeup on my shaven face'. Cool man, you rock that! If transphobes beat the shit out of you for it, that's a hate crime, report them to the police and let society handle those violent, ignorant fucktards. Do not let them think you need to go by 'she' or 'her'. You don't. You are a man and you are feminine and that is perfectly okay. I do not understand why gender dysphoria is officially able to be a mental disorder people admit they have and then we can't help them treat it and handle it. It's as if we are to accept them for having all the issues, rather than helping them cope and battle their inner struggles.

I am also curious of something furthermore, how can we say someone has transitioned from female to male if we deny gender roles have or will exist? 

I'll leave it at this for now. I'm aware how 'cancelled' I'd be if I said this IRL but I am a feminist and I know that I am against sexism, which isn't called 'genderism'. I am also against 'gender role' becoming absolute. I agree completely with the right of a male individual to act as feminine as he pleases and of a female to act as masculine as she pleases. That is truly what being pro-trans originally was. It wasn't until later on in the movement's evolution that it became taboo to admit what biological sex the trans individual is/was.
Con
RESOLUTION: If we fully deny that biological sex is attached to gender, as well as deny that there are 2 of them (as opposed to 0 or infinite), we cannot properly uphold the cause of Feminism.
POSITION: Con



OPENING STATEMENT:
Evolution has imparted all sorts of wondrous and strange things to us humans, and those mechanisms have been widely unstudied until quite recently (in so far as the overall time the Earth has existed), and because of that, we tend to look at evolutionary mechanisms rather... simply. For example, and relevantly, sexual dimorphism, or the tendency for organisms of the same species to have distinctly different characteristics based on sex. For example, most male lions have manes, and female lions do not - though I can already feel the question brewing - "Like a penis and a vagina", and sort of - but anyone whose studied gender or sex would be able to answer that question with a no.

Not even breasts are quite a thing of sexual dimorphism, you see, these things are caused by flooding of one or another hormone during gestation and development; however, the growth of a "Penis" and "vagina" is inherently linked to the exact same mechanism - perhaps this is unintuitive, but the science is quite clear - as intersex people have taught us through their study - it is only because most humans happen to have rather extreme differences that we forget this fact. Similarly, gender is also tied to the flooding of hormones during gestation, the difference is where and to what degree are those hormones developed. As many people recognize gender is quite different from sex.

The mere fact that an individual has the chromosome pair of XX or XY, is not necessarily the cause of gender in general, nor even sex - hormones are. And through observation and study, we know that the brain being showered by these hormones (generally) causes people who have features typically associated with one sex to identify as the other. This is backed by sexual dimorphism (funnily enough) you see, while the gendered brain is widely incorrect as a hypothesis, there are subtle differences in the stereotypically male and female brain - very minute ones that don't affect behavior much at all - and we see these people, trans-people, brains match the brain they identify with.

What is the point of all this? I've established an argument for trans-people, nothing to do with feminism - this opening statement should be treated a foreword, required reading before we head into the real argumentation. It is incredibly important that the voters realize that this debate is one of rhetoric, of ideals, of causes - therefore taking time explaining why trans people are valid would take up valuable room, and mess up my flow. Femisism is something that promotes the equality of women in general, my opponent claims that trans-people, their existence, counteracts this. If that is truly what my opponent believes, then they haven't fully investigated what feminism is.



DEFINING TERMS:
Though my opponent offered informal definitions for a couple of the words in the resolution, I offer my counterdefinitions for the voters to consider - note that all of my definitions are cited from official dictionary sources in contrast to my opponent's definitions.
  • Feminism - "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." [A]
  • Transgender - "adj. having or relating to a gender identity that differs from the culturally determined gender roles for one’s birth sex (i.e., the biological sex one was born with) or for one’s sex as surgically assigned at birth." [B]
  • Transexualism - "n. a condition consisting of a persistent sense of discomfort and inappropriateness relating to one’s anatomical sex, with a persistent wish to be rid of one’s genitals and to live as a member of the other sex. Those with this condition often seek to change their sex through surgical and hormonal means" [C]
Definitions not provided by Pro:
  • Attached - "Joined, fastened, or connected to something" [D]
  • Uphold - "Maintain (a custom or practice)" [E]
  • Cause - "A principle, aim, or movement to which one is committed and which one is prepared to defend or advocate." [F]
  • Gender Roles - "the pattern of behavior, personality traits, and attitudes that define masculinity or femininity in a particular culture. It frequently is considered the external manifestation of the internalized gender identity, although the two are not necessarily consistent with one another." [G]
  • Gender Identity - "one’s self-identification as male or female. Although the dominant approach in psychology for many years had been to regard gender identity as residing in individuals, the important influence of societal structures, cultural expectations, and personal interactions in its development is now recognized as well. Significant evidence now exists to support the conceptualization of gender identity as influenced by both environmental and biological factors." [H]


INTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION:
My opponent is arguing that IF it is completely denied that biological sex is connected to gender, AND IF we deny that there are more than two genders, THEN we cannot maintain the aim of Femnisim. This is a multifaceted resolution, that requires Pro to prove two separate claims: That if we deny that biological sex is connected to gender that we can't uphold feminism and that if we deny there are more than two genders we cannot uphold feminism. This is not a debate about WHETHER there are more than two genders or that biological sex is connected to gender- its about the cause of this information, and its effect on feminism in general. 



OBSERVATIONS (OF THE RESOLUTION)
  • My opponent must demonstrate both of the claims within the resolution
  • Though my opponent is appealing to one specific feminism, the resolution clearly refers to feminism's in general
  • In order for either Pro or Con to fulfill their BoP, they MUST demonstrate what the cause of feminism is


BRIEF ROADMAP:
  • CONT I -  FEMINISM'S CAUSE
    • CONT II - IMPACT OF GENDER IDENTITY
  • REBUT I - WOKE USED AS AN ADJECTIVE
    • REBUT II - GENDER IDENTITY & GENDER ROLES


CONTENTION I - FEMINISM'S CAUSE
Ia - What is Feminism? - Generally speaking - the definition provided by me outlines the aims of feminism - recall: "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." As the definition provided by Lexico - though despite this definition by authoritative sources - to bolster and elaborate what feminism is is the encyclopedia of philosophy's excerpt regarding what Feminism seeks to cause:
"feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms. Motivated by the quest for social justice, feminist inquiry provides a wide range of perspectives on social, cultural, economic, and political phenomena." [1]
This is stated to be the overall shared commitment between feminists (note that there is much debate over the normative and descriptive portions of feminism - this generalization is in order to classify the impacts on feminism as such a vague idea). Essentially, feminists seek for people of different sexes to be treated equally, specifically women equal to men, and to end things that would seek to reduce equity among sexes. If we recall the definition of "cause" provided then we can identify which part of the above explanation is the cause of feminism: "A principle, aim, or movement to which one is committed and which one is prepared to defend or advocate." Then the cause of Feminism can be identified as: To make women have equal standing as men and to end things that would prohibit that.

Ib - The foundation of gender equity - Essentially just the definition of Feminism itself. Note the specific wording here voters, and specifically, note how I've characterized feminism. The only way something can be against the cause of Feminism is if it increases sexism de facto, or it specifically renders the sexes unequal. The premise that gender doesn't have to do with biological components does not actually impact either of these goals nor does any number of genders - feminism is about the equity of the sexes and ending discrimination or anything else that causes inequity among them. Yet, my opponent will obviously insist that they do - but the only way that RMM (RationalMadman) could claim that this is the case is if either of these facts in fact caused inequity among sexes.

This implies that the reason we wish for equity among sexes is that there is a genetic component to sex and that without that genetic component there would be no proper feminism, which.. further implies that the reason that feminists want equity among sexes is that they are genetically determined to be women. I could interpret this as Pro arguing that feminism is valid because women do not "choose" to be oppressed. To be blunt, this is all bullshit. There is no genetic foundation for the equity of sexes, if anything - the fact that there is sexual dimorphism is the cause of discrimination against women - the foundation for the equity of sexes is one of ethics and morals 
it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that genetics is the root of equity whenever those same genetics are the entire reason that women are oppressed generally.

To be clear - I am not saying that genetics the broad scientific concept is the cause of female discrimination, I am saying that how people view genetics is the cause of female discrimination. Specifically, that women adhere to stereotypes based on misinterpreting genetic data. Furthermore, there is more than a specific number of genders.. actually has absolutely nothing to do with feminism - for example - the fact that there are more races than black and white do not mean that BLM protesting can't be upheld, the non-sequitur is absurd. The fact of their being more genders doesn't have anything to do with certain genders requiring equity of outcome, that would be conflating the cause of sex equity being the number of genders there are... that is to say the fact that there are two of something means that they should be equal, which is.. just as absurd.



CONTENTION II - IMPACT OF GENDER IDENTITY. 
While my first contention established that the claims my Pro made are patently absurd, the second contention will establish that gender identity has actually bolstered the effect and causes of feminism. That is to say that the fact that gender isn't necessarily equitable to biological components, and that there are more than two genders actually improve the equity of women to men, and help prevent further discrimination. The notion that what society views as our gender is our gender propagates ideas of natural hierarchies among sexes - that because you are born as A - you should act as B - gender identity fights against this notion - it objects that you were even born as A - A here can be what is identified as the sex of an individual, or it can be the stereotype of that sex, either way - the idea of a hierarchy is fought against.

Furthermore, the idea that each individual experiences gender differently, and each has their gender-differentiated (highlighting "differences" among genders and exaggerating them) completely independently of what they feel. Cis-women are discriminated against sexually quite often, as typically men will think that "they enjoy sex, therefore" or that "it's okay because.." the stereotypes of women further discrimination throughout history, and fighting the idea that there are general categories of that people can be stereotyped into. To summarize: the concept of there being non-biological based sex or gender will, in general, fight against gender differentiation and harmful stereotypes. The mere concept of these things helps bolster the equity of the sexes and stops further discrimination - which of course means that you can uphold the causes of feminism. 



REBUTTAL I - WOKE USED AS AN ADJECTIVE.
If the voters paid attention to my opponent's first section they might notice something - they have given a general "history" of the interaction of trans rights and feminism, and went on to dictate that now things are changing, that the trans-advocacy of today fundamentally oppose feminism... er... no he didn't. He argued that it wasn't fair that trans-women could compete with cis-women
"That is fantastic but once we begin to count people who were born male and want to be called she/her as female and let them rob females of world records and medals, what is that? I wonder why trans men are not wanting to be identified as their trans gender in sports."
But there is a deeper hangup that Pro has with trans people to be read, specifically with people not adhering to the "gender" assigned to them at birth:
"This was of course not a major issue early on, since earlier on trans people were essentially drag queens or females who cut their hair short and had a butch sense in fashion, meaning both identified as the same 'gender' as their 'birth sex' would imply. A drag queen would admit 'he' was a 'he' quite happily/readily when asked and a butch dressing female would do the same with 'she'. The prounouns actually were a source of pride and happiness for both. The idea being liberating what it meant to be a man or woman. A man could dress in a skirt, wear lipstick and be proud of his cock and masculinity regardless. A woman could cut her hair short, wear a shirt instead of a blouse, wear trousers, be assertive and proud of her vagina regardless."
That this is what my opponent t feels about trans people gives me some insight - insight that tells me that he doesn't actually understand what the goal of feminism is. The deep irony here is obvious to me. My opponent has a problem whenever people don't coincide with the concepts that society puts onto them, whenever someone insists that they have a right to their identity- -if that is not the core root of what Feminism is, then it has changed since I last read that encyclopedia page.

Even ignoring the unscientific idea spouted by my opponent - that trans-women have an inherent edge against Cis-women in sports:
"The notion of transgender girls having an unfair advantage comes from the idea that testosterone causes physical changes such as an increase in muscle mass. But transgender girls are not the only girls with high testosterone levels. An estimated 10 percent of women have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which results in elevated testosterone levels. They are not banned from female sports. Transgender girls on puberty blockers, on the other hand, have negligible testosterone levels. Yet these state bills would force them to play with the boys. Plus, the athletic advantage conferred by testosterone is equivocal. As Katrina Karkazis, a senior visiting fellow and expert on testosterone and bioethics at Yale University explains, “Studies of testosterone levels in athletes do not show any clear, consistent relationship between testosterone and athletic performance. Sometimes testosterone is associated with better performance, but other studies show weak links or no links. And yet others show testosterone is associated with worse performance.” The bills’ premises lack scientific validity." [2]
Pro does not seem to actually understand gender identity. It is not as if such a thing is a choice - one does not "choose" to be female or male, they simply are - and as it happens what society associates as their gender are simply wrong. Similar, one might say, to how what people assume of women to be capable of are simply wrong. The comparison is 1:1, the act of allowing gender-confirming care to transgender people itself BOLSTERS feminism in every sense of the word, even my opponent agreed that recently feminism has included a fight for gender identity
"Along with psychologists like Stoller, feminists found it useful to distinguish sex and gender. This enabled them to argue that many differences between women and men were socially produced and, therefore, changeable. Gayle Rubin (for instance) uses the phrase ‘sex/gender system’ in order to describe “a set of arrangements by which the biological raw material of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention”" [3] 
I'd like to cut through the formalities of debate, of argument, and ask Pro a question - one you asked as well - what is feminism? What are its goals? What does it hope to accomplish? Because thus far - the fact that gender isn't biological would only help feminism - dramatically different from your perspective.



REBUTTAL II - GENDER IDENTITY & GENDER ROLES.
Let us define some things:
    • Transgender - "adj. having or relating to a gender identity that differs from the culturally determined gender roles for one’s birth sex (i.e., the biological sex one was born with) or for one’s sex as surgically assigned at birth." [B]
    • Gender Roles - "the pattern of behavior, personality traits, and attitudes that define masculinity or femininity in a particular culture. It frequently is considered the external manifestation of the internalized gender identity, although the two are not necessarily consistent with one another." [G]
    • Gender Identity - "one’s self-identification as male or female. Although the dominant approach in psychology for many years had been to regard gender identity as residing in individuals, the important influence of societal structures, cultural expectations, and personal interactions in its development is now recognized as well. Significant evidence now exists to support the conceptualization of gender identity as influenced by both environmental and biological factors." [H]
    My opponent's definitions are fully wrong - they are not at all actually true

    "T. A person who has 'transitioned' went from the gender associated with their birth sex to the other/opposite one" [Pro-Round 1]
    No - this is not how transgender people work - a transgender person is just something that's gender identity does not associate with the gender put at them on borth - it does not mean that they "transitioned" it has nothing to do with "transitioning"  -furthermore- how exactly does this appeal to the resolution voters? It doesn't - we are not necessarily discussing transgender people, we are talking about gender in general - this is not only false - it is not relevant. 

    "Men become women or women become men, that is the entire way that 'transitioning' was the word that later was shortened to 'trans' evolved" [Pro-Round 1
    This is simply untrue  -trans-women go through a sex change - which is entirely different - but the suffix trans does not actually necessarily mean "to change" it can also mean to "on or to the other side of across beyond", what Pro is trying to espouse is simply ignorance dressed as knowledge.

    "When someone hates their body to the level they want to pay a surgeon to mutilate their genitalia beyond recognitin and also beyond any positive use, in order to mimic that of the other biological sex, we are not allowed to say they have issues with their self-esteem, nor are we able to suggest they get psychiatric care. On the other hand, these same people are able to admit they have a mental disorder 'gender dysphoria' in order to justify you leaving them alone." [Pro-Round 1
    What Pro fails to comprehend is that gender-affirming treatment IS psychiatric care. The fact that they do not feel comfortable in their body, or "hate their body" is a problem, but it is not one of the mind, it is one of the boysy - their body does not match their mind - and - for everything else - we would correct the body, and not the mind - even something like depression - to be depressed is not for something to be wrong with the individual, and anti-depressants are certainly not argued over. Yet... they achieve and do the EXACT same thing (with worse side-effects) for depressed people what gender-affirming treatment does for trans people. Which is mostly hormonal care. My opponent seems to completely ignore anything aside from biases and fails to see the comparison.

    I think this one sentence highlights everything for me:
    "Okay, so I do actually have an issue with both, why can't the trans woman admit 'she' s a very feminine male? Why can't the trans man admit 'he' is a very masculine female"
    Because this is FALSE - they are not "a feminine male" they are FEMALE, because they are not a "masculine female" they are MALE. Whether you want to admit or not, the science does not lie  - and were this actually relevant to the debate, I would back this up with much more evidence, but given that this is actually extremely off topic, this does not need to be substantiated until later on.

    "I will tell you why. It is because they both have ironically caved in and enabled gender roles by what they've done. Instead of going 'I am a male who likes my hair long and to wear makeup and watch chick flicks and do things many females do' this male-sex individual has gone and said 'I am a female because I do these things that society has branded as something women do and I want you to accept me for doing them so please call me she/her'. This individual probably experiences a lot of bullying and teasing for being as feminine as they are (sometimes by females, not just males and sometimes their own parents). So, they seek to transition in order to escape the hellish situation, they seek to blend in with the other gender by taking hormones and undergoing plastic surgeries of varying complexities to pass as that gender. "
    This is.. flagrantly false - transpeople are not trans because they fall into a gender role, but because they identify a UNIQUE experience, that only they can know what that gender is - the evidence behind this is homologous structures in neuro activity in transmen with cis-men, and transwomen with cis-women, it has nothing to do with buying into stereotypes, perhaps Pro's ruefully outdated conception of trans people is to blame, but this is completely false. The fact that trans people, as I have said before, are the ones to identify their gender - to not accept society's demands simply because they demanded it - is in league WITH feminism - and Pro doesn't even make the connection.

    "Do not let them think you need to go by 'she' or 'her'. You don't. You are a man and you are feminine and that is perfectly okay. I do not understand why gender dysphoria is officially able to be a mental disorder people admit they have and then we can't help them treat it and handle it."
    Pro fundamentally misunderstands - this is as if someone were arguing - "You are a heterosexual who isn't attracted to females, and you should own that! Don't go have sex with other guys!" You are talking about denying a fundamental identity - research has definitively demnstrated. Pro makes it sounds as if society is making them identify with their gender identity- this is absurd, transpeople identify with the gender THEY feel are true, AGAINST society - the mere fact that Pro does not like women who are more masculine does not mean that transpeople somehow hurt feminism.

    Notice Voters, that the majority of Pro's arguments have nothing to do with the resolution - where he has he demonstrated that identifying gender as not genetic inhibits feminism? Where has he even mentioned the number of genders? Notice voters, that Pro has not even brought up these points, he instead goes on a massive red herring that isn't even true. If Pro can actually affirm his resolution, I will grant more direct responses, until then this general rebuttal ought to do.

    Back to Pro



    SOURCES:
    Definitions:
    Citations: 
    Round 2
    Pro
    Based on being busy IRL and also thinking of different angles on this topic I will essentially surrebder this Round of debate.

    I'd like to apooogise if my toen made it seem I meant something hostile when I said I don't pretend to ve female in my Round One disclaimer, I meant I am not female and don't pretend to know their struggle or uplift in life and I think females should say the same for men but on net balance especially in career mobility, Females have had it worse.

    I also made a huge mistake grammatically/semantically. I knew and know that trans men are the ones born with female biological sex and vice versa, somehow my brain itself made a dual error and flipped around the logic of who is born as what, sorry for that.

    I stick to all my Round 1 points though and welcome Con to use as many of the 30k chars as he pleases in this Round, the fault is mine alone.

    Con
    RESOLUTION: If we fully deny that biological sex is attached to gender, as well as deny that there are 2 of them (as opposed to 0 or infinite), we cannot properly uphold the cause of Feminism.
    POSITION: Con


    BRIEF ROADMAP:
    Over the following round I'll be reinforcing ideas and claims presented in round 1, I'll start with my two contentions: Feminism's Cause, and Impact of Gender Identity - though as this round will be much briefer, they will be under the same category: "CONTENTIONS", after that I'll further discredit my opponent's claims in the reinforced REBUTTALS section, which will contain both of my round 1 rebuttals: Woke used as an adjective, and Gender Identity & Gender Roles. 


    CONTENTIONS
    • Inner Guide
      • 1a - Feminism's Cause
      • 1b - Impact of Gender Identity 
    1A (FEMINSIM'S CAUSE)
    Previously I provided a description of feminism:

    Generally speaking - the definition provided by me outlines the aims of feminism - recall: "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." As the definition provided by Lexico - though despite this definition by authoritative sources - to bolster and elaborate what feminism is is the encyclopedia of philosophy's excerpt regarding what Feminism seeks to cause:
    "feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms. Motivated by the quest for social justice, feminist inquiry provides a wide range of perspectives on social, cultural, economic, and political phenomena." [1]
    As well as establish how gender identity existing doesn't hamper feminism:
    This implies that the reason we wish for equity among sexes is that there is a genetic component to sex and that without that genetic component there would be no proper feminism, which.. further implies that the reason that feminists want equity among sexes is that they are genetically determined to be women. I could interpret this as Pro arguing that feminism is valid because women do not "choose" to be oppressed. To be blunt, this is all bullshit. There is no genetic foundation for the equity of sexes, if anything - the fact that there is sexual dimorphism is the cause of discrimination against women - the foundation for the equity of sexes is one of ethics and morals  it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that genetics is the root of equity whenever those same genetics are the entire reason that women are oppressed generally. To be clear - I am not saying that genetics the broad scientific concept is the cause of female discrimination, I am saying that how people view genetics is the cause of female discrimination. Specifically, that women adhere to stereotypes based on misinterpreting genetic data. 
    This round I only want to draw attention to the specific goals of feminism for my opponent and the voters to recall:
    • Equal treating of the sexes
    • prevent things that would stop said equity
    Generally speaking, those are the only two things that feminism aims to do, there are subsections of feminism that perhaps have more intensive or specific goals, but we are not talking about some outlier, nor hyper-specific feministic ideal, but feminism as a general concept. Furthermore, it is clear to me that my opponent doesn't understand that in order for the goals of feminism to be inhibited by gender's nonbiological nature, or non-binary nature, some things must be true.

    • the root of egalitarian treatment is a biological imperative
    • the root of egalitarian treatment is the exclusiveness of gender
    To sum it up quoting myself:
    This implies that the reason we wish for equity among sexes is that there is a genetic component to sex and that without that genetic component there would be no proper feminism, which.. further implies that the reason that feminists want equity among sexes is that they are genetically determined to be women. I could interpret this as Pro arguing that feminism is valid because women do not "choose" to be oppressed. To be blunt, this is all bullshit. There is no genetic foundation for the equity of sexes, if anything - the fact that there is sexual dimorphism is the cause of discrimination against women - the foundation for the equity of sexes is one of ethics and morals it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that genetics is the root of equity whenever those same genetics are the entire reason that women are oppressed generally.
    For those in the back: essentially - arguing that the number of genders is responsible for inhibiting feminism would be akin to claiming that intersex people existing inhibit feminism, absurd at its face-  and to claim that its some biological imperative would be like claiming that people with Swyer Syndrome (someone with a xy chromosome but entirely female phenotypes (1)) inhibit feminism. Neither do - because, and I say this again, feminism comes from an ethical consideration of others, not biology or numbers.

    1B (IMPACT OF GENDER IDENTITY)
    Essentially my arugment was that the notion of gender identity would actually help feminism accomplish it's goals - summed up here:
    That is to say that the fact that gender isn't necessarily equitable to biological components, and that there are more than two genders actually improve the equity of women to men, and help prevent further discrimination. The notion that what society views as our gender is our gender propagates ideas of natural hierarchies among sexes - that because you are born as A - you should act as B - gender identity fights against this notion - it objects that you were even born as A - A here can be what is identified as the sex of an individual, or it can be the stereotype of that sex, either way - the idea of a hierarchy is fought against....the concept of there being non-biological based sex or gender will, in general, fight against gender differentiation and harmful stereotypes. The mere concept of these things helps bolster the equity of the sexes and stops further discrimination - which of course means that you can uphold the causes of feminism. 
    To present one of the points made here syllogistically:
    P1: The notion "you were born as x, and therefore must behave as x" inihibits feminism
    P2: The notion of gender identity, in general, inhibits the notion presented in P1
    CON: Therefore the notion of gender identity, in general, helps stop what inihibits feminism

    It is fairly easy to spot my point, Gender Identity actively contradicts notions that would inhibit feminism, some of the core components as well - not "recieving awards" or "cross-dressing", no, gender identity as a concept of non-biological identity fights against the inherently hierarchical belief that you must behave as you are borne, that society can identify what you are better than you can. Such hierarchical thinking is one of the core "opponents" of feminism. 



    REBUTTALS:
    • Inner Guide
      • 2a - Woke used as as Adjective
      • 2b - Gender Identity & Gender Roles
    2A (WOKE USED AS AN ADJECTIVE)
    My opponent's core argumentation from round one is an inherent misrepresentation of transgender individuals, and arguing using, what may seem intuitive, but ultimately false assertions. To sum up my rebuttal:
    The deep irony here is obvious to me. My opponent has a problem whenever people don't coincide with the concepts that society puts onto them, whenever someone insists that they have a right to their identity- -if that is not the core root of what Feminism is, then it has changed since I last read that encyclopedia page....Pro does not seem to actually understand gender identity. It is not as if such a thing is a choice - one does not "choose" to be female or male, they simply are - and as it happens what society associates as their gender are simply wrong. Similar, one might say, to how what people assume of women to be capable of are simply wrong. 
    Furthermore, it would be prudent of me to demonstrate an assertion made within the following round (one which was not substantiated with any reasoning):
    • "Pro does not seem to actually understand gender identity. It is not as if such a thing is a choice - one does not "choose" to be female or male, they simply are - and as it happens what society associates as their gender are simply wrong"
    To demonstrate this assertion:
    "The establishment of gender identity is a complex phenomenon and the diversity of gender expression argues against a simple or unitary explanation. For this reason, the extent to which it is determined by social vs biological (ie, genes and hormones) factors continues to be debated vigorously.17 The biological basis of gender identity cannot be modelled in animals and is best studied in people who identify with a gender that is different from the sex of their genitals, in particular transsexual people. Several extensive reviews by Dick Swaab and coworkers elaborate the current evidence for an array of prenatal factors that influence gender identity, including genes and hormones.1820" (2)
    Note that nowhere in this disertation of gender identity is it mentioned to be a "choice", instead referring to the biological and social influences that make up gender identity. 

    Furthermore, it would be prudent to mention that no where in my opponent's arguments does he actually substantiate (or even mention) the resolution or the claims made within said resolution: specifically (for the voters convienence) that gender being non-biological inhibits feminism and that gender being non-binary inhibits feminism. Note, that if my opponent fails to uphold even one of his claims, then the argument would automatically fall to me, Pro, I would encourage you to present some form of suhbstantiation for your claims. 

    2B (GENDER IDENTITY & GENDER ROLES)
    Now, voters, I would like to preface this with a fact-  the exact same problem from before is here - nowhere do we see a single mention of the claims made within the resolution, nor do we so much, if any, substantiation of said claims. Furthermore, my opponent attempts to charactirize people without all of the neccessary definitions - as such - until my opponent is able to present a credible defintiion and establish why that definition should be preferred to mine, we are operating automatically on my definitions. To refresh the voters of such definitions:
    • Transgender - "adj. having or relating to a gender identity that differs from the culturally determined gender roles for one’s birth sex (i.e., the biological sex one was born with) or for one’s sex as surgically assigned at birth." [B]
    • Gender Roles - "the pattern of behavior, personality traits, and attitudes that define masculinity or femininity in a particular culture. It frequently is considered the external manifestation of the internalized gender identity, although the two are not necessarily consistent with one another." [G]
    • Gender Identity - "one’s self-identification as male or female. Although the dominant approach in psychology for many years had been to regard gender identity as residing in individuals, the important influence of societal structures, cultural expectations, and personal interactions in its development is now recognized as well. Significant evidence now exists to support the conceptualization of gender identity as influenced by both environmental and biological factors." [H]
    I would present this as a sum up of my rebuttal:
    Pro fundamentally misunderstands - this is as if someone were arguing - "You are a heterosexual who isn't attracted to females, and you should own that! Don't go have sex with other guys!" You are talking about denying a fundamental identity - research has definitively demnstrated. Pro makes it sounds as if society is making them identify with their gender identity- this is absurd, transpeople identify with the gender THEY feel are true, AGAINST society - the mere fact that Pro does not like women who are more masculine does not mean that transpeople somehow hurt feminism.

    Notice Voters, that the majority of Pro's arguments have nothing to do with the resolution - where he has he demonstrated that identifying gender as not genetic inhibits feminism? Where has he even mentioned the number of genders? Notice voters, that Pro has not even brought up these points, he instead goes on a massive red herring that isn't even true. If Pro can actually affirm his resolution, I will grant more direct responses, until then this general rebuttal ought to do.
    Essentially my opponent attempts to establish several operative definitions for transgender indiviudals, and work off of those understanding to rant on and on about how bad they are. That's being quite charitable, as my opponent repeats themselves with little to no substantiation in an attempt to prove something that is entirely unrelated from the resolution. 

    Voters - Pro has not even argued since the first argument, this summation is not neccessary, but I thought it prudent to streamline just how off track Pro was in their argumentation with regard to the actual resolution. 

    BACK TO PRO


    SOURCES:
    Round 3
    Pro
    Forfeited
    Con
    Extend
    Round 4
    Pro
    Yeah I don't think I care about this debate anymore, it's gonna be high effort for small reward.


    Con
    Extend
    Round 5
    Pro
    Masculinity and femininity are real.

    Which one you're more geared towards is not changing your biological sex.
    Con
    My opponent makes no real argument - extend - its pretty obvious - my opponent basically forfeited - vote  Con