Being Transgender is Not Unnatural
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I would like to discuss whether or not being trans should be considered unnatural, why it should or shouldn't be, and what this would mean about society's definition of what is natural or unnatural.
I am new or unfamiliar with much of the jargon related to debate and philosophy, so I hope the debate will be graded on the soundness and rationale of arguments, as well as on consistent logic and a lack of fallacies.
Please comment things I should change, fix or add for future debates.
My argument, starting off, is relatively simple.
To begin with, more semantically, the definition of Natural vs Unnatural is a flawed one. Everything is a part of the natural world. An anthill or beehive would be considered natural, therefore, a house would be considered natural. We are biological entities just as ants or bees are, and, similarly, have evolved to build structures, just as they have. This gets somewhat into a mechanistically determined world--if physics is a description of the material or natural world, and every interaction and causality can be broken down to mechanical and material constituents and causalities--and how we cannot clearly define the boundary between the natural world, which gave rise to humanity, and the evolved human ability to understand and manipulate reality (science and engineering, in their different fields, in essence) into what we consider to bee unnatural. Natural and unnatural are a false dichotomy, as the only boundary between the two comes from an arbitrary separation, essentially, of human-made and non-human-made.
To boil that down, natural vs unnatural is a false dichotomy. Our ability to understand the world with science and manipulate it medically and with engineering cannot be considered unnatural, as our ability to do so emerged from the natural process of evolution. We are biological organisms which naturally evolved from the natural, material world, and we have the ability to manipulate the natural, material world, through evolution. There is no natural or unnatural to begin with.
To move more specifically into the transgender topic, I believe I will need to hear my opponent's side a bit more, hopefully they can give some thoughts on my idea of natural vs unnatural, because the conversation can't really move forward unless the opponent can prove there is in fact a difference between natural and unnatural, but I will give some thoughts on transgenderism, using my logic on naturalness and unnaturalness.
First, if we are organisms which live in a deterministically mechanistic reality, and we are organisms which have evolved to be able to manipulate our bodies and decide to do so, then we are no different than a flower blooming because it was mechanistically determined to do so, or than a meteor moving through the sky, or the natural development of a bird growing feathers. We are simply bodies performing actions according to our design and our programming.
Secondly, any human body has the capability to produce these hormones, whether they are using HRT to transition from male-to-female or female-to-male, otherwise they would not be able to receive those hormones, and those hormones would not be able to affect that person's body. These hormones are only able to be taken and can only affect the body because the body is naturally designed to make use of these hormones if introduced into the system. You might say this is unnatural because this person's body does not naturally produce hormones at this level, but the body doesn't naturally produce proteins or carbohydrates at the level needed for survival.
HRT isn't necessarily needed for survival, but the same logic applies. If artificially ingesting or injecting hormones would be considered unnatural, then so would eating food. It's the same process.
As far as how the body is changed through hormones, or through post-op surgeries, the same mechanical argument applies. If we are only bodies, then the process of changing the body into another form would be no different than the shape of a hill changing due to long-term weather and geological effects.
This is the essence of my initial argument, and I am excited to hear the opposing side's thoughts on this, as well as their thoughts on transgenderism in general. Thank you.
Pro is trying to rewrite the debate's topic as follows:
Everything is inherently natural.
If Pro had their way, this would be the new topic and Pro tethers a deterministic reality to this being inherently true.
However, I will offer 2 counter-Kritiks before proceeding to explain why the resolution is pretty much inherently true once we observe the actual definitions of 'natural' and 'transgender'.
Counter-Kritik 1: The actual false dichotomy is between Determinism and Chaos Theory.
There is a common misconception that even the highest minds in philosophy fall victim to; that in any way at all it is discernable to those inside of the construct of reality to actually know if it's all ultimately inevitable or randomly coincidental.
There is absolutely no way that Pro can offer you to know if the core of reality is random and that the laws of physics, chemistry etc are coincidental (after all, at the quantum level many of Newton's laws break, Einstein took note of this when developing his theory of relativity and other observations). Even if literally everything in our reality is proven to be most likely deterministic and a somewhat simulated construct with strict rules that are consistently adhered to, it's not only possible that it still is random but the reality within our reality or alternatively outside of it, cannot be known to us and thus not concluded about.
The only reason it feels intuitive to assume determinism to humans is that our form of intelligence (which we evolved as wild animals during our evolution) is prone to pattern recognition.
Seeing familiar objects or patterns in otherwise random or unrelated objects or patterns is called pareidolia. It’s a form of apophenia, which is a more general term for the human tendency to seek patterns in random information. Everyone experiences it from time to time.
A German scientist named Klaus Conrad coined apophanie (from the Greek apo, away, and phaenein, to show) in 1958. He was describing the acute stage of schizophrenia, during which unrelated details seem saturated in connections and meaning. Unlike an epiphany—a true intuition of the world’s interconnectedness—an apophany is a false realization. Swiss psychologist Peter Brugger introduced the term into English when he penned a chapter in a 2001 book on hauntings and poltergeists. Apophenia, he said, was a weakness of human cognition: the “pervasive tendency … to see order in random configurations,” an “unmotivated seeing of connections,” the experience of “delusion as revelation.” On the phone he unveiled his favorite formulation yet: “the tendency to be overwhelmed by meaningful coincidences.”
In statistics, a problem akin to apophenia is a Type I error, or false positive. It means believing something is real when it isn’t, based on a misleading pattern in the data. The equal and opposite misstep, a Type II error, involves attributing a true relationship to chance. Defaulting to Type I thinking may have once conferred a survival advantage: Assume every rustle in the grass is a tiger, and you’ll last a lot longer than the carefree naïf who chalks each disturbance up to the wind. So, the theory goes, human brains evolved into “belief engines” and “pattern-recognition machines,” keen to organize jumbled sensory inputs into meaningful data. We are also expert detectors of conspiracies in random events, whispers in radio static, and the Virgin Mary in grilled cheese. Sometimes these false positives create an orderly perceptual continuum that helps us think. They aren’t strictly necessary, but they are at least usually benign. When I see a scowling man in the moon, or you see clouds that remind you of fluffy lambs, our brains are making the world a more diverse and beautiful place. Plus, every now and then, chaos offers up glimmers of order.
Yet apophenia can also lure us into false and damaging convictions. Take the gambler’s fallacy, which states—erroneously—that in a sequence of random events, past outcomes will affect future outcomes. A player imagines he sees flickers of cosmic logic in the heads-tails-tails pattern of successive coin flips; he places his bets accordingly and loses a bundle of cash. Or a trail of tea leaves in the vague shape of a skull causes a woman to cancel her social engagements and spend the rest of the day in bed. Or someone pieces together random news clippings and decides that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were an inside job. Or a kid studies the headlights sliding over her bedroom wall, thinks they constitute a code, and concludes that UFOs are real. (I did that.)
So apophenia cuts both ways—it’s a profoundly human habit of mind that can underlie adaptive behaviors and reward flights of fancy, or induce all kinds of paranoia and silliness.
Pro is saying things are deterministic because Pro is presuming that some patterns and links between variables in our reality necessitate that everything ultimately is enslaved to 'nature' and that therefore no matter how unnaturally rearranged something is, that makes it inherently 'natural' anyway because Pro thinks all reality is axiomatically determined and natural regardless of how anyone could explain or interpret it. Not only does this run concurrent to the spirit of debating itself but Pro never proved to that reality is deterministic, it was simply stated as something to take for granted.
Counter-Kritik 2: If nothing is unnatural, nothing is natural and that inverts 'natural' to be the negated quality, not 'unnatural'.
Let's say Pro is correct about everything except that nothing is unnatural, in the Round One.
Follow me here for a moment:
Premise 1: If something s not actually organic but mechanistic and part of an entirely robotic construct, it is unnatural.
Premise 2: All reality is deterministic and anything that appears to be natural is actually simply part of an unnatural mechanistic machine, there is no organic 'way' or quality.
Conclusion: Reality is unnatural.
End of Kritiks, Time for actual debating
Definition of unnatural1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events2a: not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSEc: inconsistent with what is reasonable or expectedan unnatural alliance
I skipped the 'b' definition in that link as I feel it cannot in any intuitive way be what applies to this debate's topic.
Transgender is a general term that describes people whose gender identity, or their internal sense of being male, female, or something else, does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. By contrast, the term cisgender describes people whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Alternatively, let's look at what the opposites to both are, to better understand the debate's semantics.
Definition of cisgender: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth
I feel this is a good way to see that the resolution must be true. The natural way things go is that a male being is generally masculine as they grow and fits in with the gender 'man', if this being happens to deviate from that and feel they do not fit, they are then fitting the exact definition of unnatural even before any hormone therapy and operation but certainly post-HRT and post-op they are a person who went through unnatural processes and means of ending up as 'she/her' despite being originally naturally presumed/concluded to be he/him.
We can both agree (Pro and I) that being unnatural is fine, we can respect the person's decision all we want to but we cannot play around with words and definitions to the extent that we can feign it as natural.
Naturally, the male sex is linked to the 'man' or 'boy' gender. Naturally, the female sex is linked to the 'woman' or 'girl' gender. If one deviates to they/them neutrality, it's already unnatural and if they then flip over to transition to the other side (which is what generally is meant by 'transgender' as opposed to 'genderfluid' or 'genderqueer') we can say this being has successfully transitioned to the unnatural combination of being the gender that's naturally associated with the other biological sex.
Pro did not offer alternative definitions, nor justify with evidence that reality is all natural, they assumed a lot and presented it to you as truth. I used actual dictionaries to define the debate's topic and am thusly the only debater so far to give you actual meanings to work with in order to interpret it as resolved true or false (I argue it's false).
In summary, because having a gender identity that does not match the biological sex of the individual, those that are transgender are neither in accordance with nature or consistent with the 'normal course of events' nor 'normal human feelings or behavior'. Since that is the definition of 'unnatural' it follows that being transgender is, in fact, unnatural.
Con is trying to rewrite my argument as follows:
Pro is trying to rewrite the debate’s topic.
However, I thoroughly appreciate their counters and their arguments so far, and am glad they chose to accept this debate.
I think my point with determinism was somewhat missed, though I don't think I explained it well, and I believe Con's counters to it were well thought out and will help me further develop that point.
First, responding to the first counter-kritik, it would indeed be the case that if everything was deterministic, there would be no delineation between natural and unnatural. There are no two separable systems. They are of the same system. In addition, the argument about randomness is a Red Herring. Randomness has nothing to do with naturalness or unnaturalness. Quantum Physics is still an aspect or attribute of the natural world.
And, nonetheless, while there are aspects of reality which are random, enough of reality is not random so as to make incredibly precise observations of it. If reality was as random as Con seems to be implying, modern feats of engineering and medicine would be impossible.
Reality is deterministic enough we can repeatedly make reliable and precise observations at increasing levels of accuracy and complexity.
In addition, having a “natural way of things” (or—as the opposite of their definition of “unnatural”—being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events, or consistent with what is reasonable or expected) implies there are non-coincidental, non-random “rules” which govern our reality.
If there were not non-random, non-coincidental rules, there would be no way to define what “nature” was, or what “natural” things were constituted of.
Part of my argument with determinism is that what we define as “natural” (non human-made things)and “unnatural” (human-made things) are a part of the same material system, and their constituents (atoms, molecules, etc.) are no different in an object tha tis non human-made and human-made.
Not only was this part of the argument overlooked by the Con, and their use of the Red Herring (the false-false dichotomy), but so was the broader point I was trying to make.
Humans emerged from what we typically call Nature (everything that is not human), and my point is that we’re not actual ever separate from Nature. We can’t make a meaningful separation from Nature and Non-Nature. That’s the first point there.
And then, it seems to me as if you are saying determinism, whether the universe is partially deterministic or completely deterministic, is a schizophrenic non-realization. Seeing as science, physics, biology and so forth are all factors of our knowledge of determinism, and these are the mosttested and reliable fields of human knowledge we have, I can’t think of something less schizophrenic or less apophenic than determinism. That’s like saying you might be schizophrenic for observing the growth of grass because of quantum randomness.
Newtonian Physics, cosmology, biology, neuropsychology, evolution and the other sciences that would create the “determinist pattern” might be among the last things on this planet I would consider to be misleading patterns.
Moving on to the second counter-kritik, the Pro actually inverted this counter. Unnaturalness is negated in my argument, which does nothing to the quality of “natural”, it just means there is no need to create a separate category from “natural” since there is no “unnatural”.
-Something can be both mechanistic and organic
- There can certainly be an organic qualia to mechanistic things. Humans are organic, by definition. We are organisms, and we possess carbon, and we evolved naturally. All of these aspects of “natural” or “organic” qualia can still be described mechanistically.
However, looking at the argument on determinism, I can understand why Con would wish to leave it out of the argument. It’s akin to an appeal to omniscience or omnipotence.
So, I will try to steel man the framework the Pro is using and argue for transgenderism being natural within their framework or their terms, rather than solely rely on this appeal to determinism and a deterministic system.
A few parameters to define what I think is Con’s framework, and if I get this wrong, hopefully Con can correct me, and we can have an even more fruitful Round 3.
First, we cannot bend definitions in order to say, “X = Y, because I re-defined X to satisfy the definition of Y”.
Second, something can be considered “natural” if it can be found in nature and is not done or made by humans; or if something possesses an ability or characteristic it was born with.
Third, something is considered “unnatural” if it is not in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events; not in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior; or inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected.
In addition, I agree with all of the Con’s definitions of transgender, genderqueer, cisgender, etc.
Now, there is also a minor contradiction here, which I find interesting. If something is only natural if it is not done or made by humans, then, with that definition ,nothing humans do or make can be considered natural. So, a more accurate question might be, “Is this behavior natural for humans; or, is it natural given human creations and human behavior is inherently unnatural, by the first(B1) definition of unnatural?”
So, to steel man what Con is saying, it is not natural for a woman to decide they want to be or identify as a man, and it is not natural for a man to decide they want to be or identify as a woman. Because they were born as one sex, naturally, it would go against the natural order of things (given that this person was born a female or male because of the natural process of fetus development, genetics, environmental factors and so forth) to try to be a thing you are not, and it would be wrong to define yourself as something you are not (likely for a variety of reasons). Male humans possess one set of typical characteristics, female humans possess another set of characteristics; it would be unnatural to artificially give male humans female characteristics, and the same with giving female humans male characteristics, artificially; and it would be inconsistent with our definitions of male sex and female sex to define something as being the gender type of its opposite sex type.
Humans do not naturally possess the ability to alter their gender/sex, and it is inconsistent with our knowledge of human anatomy, biology, society and so forth to assume a human would be able to do so naturally. In addition, it is unnatural for a human to want to be another sex or gender.
However, altering one’s gender or sex is a natural phenomenon. Though humans are not anatomically equipped to do so without medical or technological intervention, and though we can only partially/incompletely alter one’s gender or sex, there are many animals who naturally possess this ability, or a similar one.
Now, we can look at what would be considered natural for a human. Humans can naturally vary in overlapping sexually bi-modal characteristics. Meaning, there are characteristics males typically possess, and characteristics females typically possess, and there can naturally be an overlap of those things. In addition, humans, or a consequentially large enough population of humans, have naturally gravitated towards non-traditional gender roles, as well as activities like cross-dressing, which gives credence to the idea it is natural for humans, or a subset of humans, to behave like the opposite sex, or how the opposite sex is perceived to behave, possess psychometric traits of the opposite sex, or even possess physiological traits more closely related to the opposite sex (not including intersex individuals or individuals with atypical chromosome pairs).
So, there are animals which can naturally alter their sex or gender, and it might be natural for a subset of humans to possess traits of the opposite sex, as well as a desire to be the opposite sex (or possibly an instinct to be the opposite sex, if they possess the psychometric and behavioral traits that are more typical of the opposite sex). Their minds may instinctually feel as if they do not belong to that body.
As to whether or not a transition process itself can be considered natural. While humans do not possess the ability to transition without medical and/or technological intervention, humans naturally possess the traits which allow them to perform these medical and technological interventions.
Humans are naturally gifted with a high intelligence, as well as opposable thumbs. Humans are naturally inclined towards innovation and curiosity, as well as creating stable hierarchies through means of altruism, or mutual support and gift-giving. This means medical intervention, a form of altruism or mutual support and gift-giving.
It would therefore be natural for humans to want to create a medical and technological intervention in order to help an individual who naturally feels as though they should be of the opposite sex to become of the opposite sex, as much as they can be.
In addition, if we look at human technology as an extended phenotype, we can say that the ability to transition from one sexto another could be considered an extended phenotype of a human organism.
So, that’s what I have at this point. If I missed parts of your argument, or didn’t argue something you were arguing, talked past you and so forth, please let me know. Hopefully, with your response, we can have an even more productive third round. Thank you again.
Correcting a couple Round 1 blunders:
I thought I was debating Pro for transgender is unnatural, when I said it is true (I made this error twice) it is obvious what I meant.
I now fully understand I am Con to 'not unnatural', the double negative slipped my mind in those times where I said I was proving what I momentarily thought said 'unnatural' true.
Establishing the difference between animalistic transsexuality and 'being transgender'.
The World Health Organisation summarises the difference between sex and gender in the following way:Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.”Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. The concept of gender includes five important elements: relational, hierarchical, historical, contextual and institutional. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health17.”
The UK government defines sex as:
- referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
- generally male or female
- something that is assigned at birthThe UK government defines gender as:
- a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth
- where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman
When Pro is going on about animals that can sexually morph from male to female, this is clearly outside the scopes of the debate. We are not debating about an XX human turning into an XY human or vice versa, that is not only physically unviable under current science today but even if it's possible is literally what 0% of people mean when they say 'transgender'.
If a transsexual animal happens to pick up a behavioural characteristic or two associated with the other sex, it still is barely ever going to be 'gender' unless we are dealing with animals as complex-minded as chimpanzees and dolphins (which don't transition sex). I am not interested in even engaging this angle any further because it is clear that Pro is grasping at straws and moving the goalposts as in intentional strategy in this debate. After I shut down the determinism angle, Pro is deciding to refer to animals that change their sex.
A human doesn't change their sex, neither at will nor through procedures, they change their gender when they are transgender. This debate is blatantly only about that because it says being transgender, are we meant to interview animals to get their perspective on what being transgender is? Which animal other than humans has even got a sophisticated 'gender' as opposed to sex in their social circle other than complex mammals, out of which only humans transition gender?
This is really dirty play by Pro and I hope voters take this into account.
The urge to invent the transgender medical technology is natural
Alright, again this is completely goalpost moving. The biggest signal of the goalpost being moved is 'being'.
beingDefinition of being (Entry 4 of 4)present participle of BE
Definition of be
(Entry 1 of 5)1b: to have identity with : to constitute the same idea or object asThe first person I met was my brother.d: to have a specified qualification or characterization
This is quite clearly what was meant when the term (as a verb) 'being' was used in the debate's topic. 'Being transgender' has absolutely nothing to do with the inventing of hormone therapy medicine nor anything involved with the operations, wigs, makeup, clothing or any other element of invention that is associated with making transition more viable, easy and/or comfortable.
The resolution is strictly about being transgender.
I will now remind the definitions of the terms.
Definition of unnatural1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events2a: not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSEc: inconsistent with what is reasonable or expectedan unnatural allianceTransgender is a general term that describes people whose gender identity, or their internal sense of being male, female, or something else, does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. By contrast, the term cisgender describes people whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.
I put the URLs of the dictionaries in Round 1.
I will now re-iterate (literally copy and paste with slight grammatical tweak) how I explicitly justify the proof, based on these definitions, that being transgender is unnatural.
Naturally, the male sex is linked to the 'man' or 'boy' gender. Naturally, the female sex is linked to the 'woman' or 'girl' gender. If one deviates to they/them neutrality, it's already unnatural and if they then flip over to transition to the other side (which is what generally is meant by 'transgender' as opposed to 'genderfluid' or 'genderqueer') we can say this being has successfully transitioned to the unnatural combination of being the gender that's naturally associated with the other biological sex.Pro did not offer alternative definitions, nor justify with evidence that reality is all natural, they assumed a lot and presented it to you as truth. I used actual dictionaries to define the debate's topic and am thusly the only debater so far to give you actual meanings to work with in order to interpret it as resolved true or false (I argue it's false).In summary, because they have a gender identity that does not match the biological sex of the individual, those that are transgender are neither in accordance with nature or consistent with the 'normal course of events' nor 'normal human feelings or behavior'. Since that is the definition of 'unnatural' it follows that being transgender is, in fact, unnatural.
Pro has yet to prove how in any shape or form being transgender fails to meet these criteria of 'unnatural'.
So, a few thoughts going into this response. I’m worried my opponent has begun resorting to strategizing their way out of an argument, rather than actually engaging with the argument and it’s contents. They say a lot of things about my argument, but they don’t really engage with the ideas, nor do they show connections between why my ideas are wrong and theirs are correct. Hopefully you will see what I mean here.
First of all, their attack on the definition of Transgender.
While there can be a difference in the terms Transgender and Transsexual, it is common knowledge that Transgender has become an umbrella term, with Transsexual as a sub-category of Transgender.
This is going to come up a lot throughout this response, so I hope the readers and voters go through these and note this definition, since much of their response hinges on this.
To reiterate: It is common knowledge that Transgender is an umbrella term which encompasses Transsexual as a sub-category.
Moving on to where you discussed transsexuality in animals. First, the opponent's belief they’ve “shut down” the determinism aspect of my argument, let me run through all that again and why it's relevant.
Humans are a part of a deterministic system, and this deterministic system is what we call nature. The material/mechanical/physical world is what we call the natural world.
I don't know what else could be described as "Natural", and part of my argument is that "Natural" ought not be limited to non-human life and systems, since humans came from the natural world as a part of evolution, and we live in a deterministic reality, so, it would follow, that human technology and behaviors are still natural.
The opponent “shut down” this argument by using a red herring that involves randomness, and I already addressed this:
“In addition, the argument about randomness is a Red Herring. Randomness has nothing to do with naturalness or unnaturalness. Quantum Physics is still an aspect or attribute of the natural world.”
But I’ll develop this further.
Randomness is a Red Herring for multiple reasons. One, they don’t address my actual argument. Two, randomness does nothing to disprove determinism. Three, randomness has nothing to do with naturalness.
They then seem to be saying, “Because randomness exists, determinism doesn’t exist, and because determinism doesn’t exist, you can’t say that human behavior is natural. Therefore, you can't use science to prove that transgenderism is natural.”
Randomness does not exclude determinism. This randomness only exists at a quantum level, and, once you move to an atomic, then molecular level of analysis, reality becomes increasingly deterministic, until it becomes entirely deterministic. In addition, the randomness of subatomic particles would have nothing to do with human behavior, while things like neuropsychology, neurochemistry, physiology and evolution would, and these things are all heavily deterministic systems.
The point here would be: Humans, human behavior and human technology all emerged from what we describe as the natural world, and, because this happened deterministically, it would imply that all of human behavior and technology arose naturally as processes of evolution, biology, psychology, physiology, etc.
Nature was the billiard ball in the deterministic system which gave rise to humans. Therefore, humans and human behavior is natural.
Randomness is anon-sequitur, as far as naturalness is concerned.
Moving on now to “Animalistic Transsexuality”.
First of all, I’ve already gone over the fact that transsexuality is a sub-category of the umbrella term, “transgender”.
Next, after the definitions, this is clearly not outside the scope of the argument. Using examples of transsexuality in the natural world would 100% be within the scope of the debate. The opponent artificially narrows the conversation down by excluding examples of transgender behaviors in other organisms, and then limiting the definition of these behaviors to altering one's chromosomes.
So, opponent here first defines what “be” means. Then, they say all this:
“This is quite clearly what was meant when the term (as a verb) 'being' was used in the debate's topic. 'Being transgender' has absolutely nothing to do with the inventing of hormone therapy medicine nor anything involved with the operations, wigs, makeup, clothing or any other element of invention that is associated with making transition more viable, easy and/or comfortable.
“The resolution is strictly about being transgender.”
Ignoring the misuse and misunderstanding of "transgender" on the opponent's behalf, let’s take your definition of “be” and “being”.
If someone wishes to “be” of the opposite sex or gender, would it not follow they would want to undergo medical procedures in order to change their sex to match their self-perceived gender? Would it not follow that humans would want to develop technology that would help other people transition?
“Naturally, the male sex is linked to the 'man' or 'boy' gender. Naturally, the female sex is linked to the 'woman' or 'girl' gender. If one deviates to they/them neutrality, it's already unnatural and if they then flip over to transition to the other side (which is what generally is meant by 'transgender' as opposed to 'genderfluid' or 'genderqueer') we can say this being has successfully transitioned to the unnatural combination of being the gender that's naturally associated with the other biological sex.”
Ignoring a number of issues, and addressing the opponent's main contention.
It is unnatural for an individual to want to identify as the opposite gender.
- There are animals that can change their sex
- Humans evolved from similar organisms
- There are chemical and hormonal differences, as well as differences of other characteristics, in the sexes
- There can be individuals of one sex who might share characteristics of the other sex
- Humans are capable of meaningfully self-identifying [and it is meaningful that we can self-identify, because we would not have evolved this ability if it did not have an evolutionary purpose]
It would follow that some humans internally identify with the opposite sex/gender, and it would follow that this would be natural and in accordance with expected occurrence of events. So, really, what would follow here, is that the feeling that one is of the opposite gender is completely natural. The only problem would be demonstrating the exact mechanisms which would cause this.
“Pro did not offer alternative definitions, nor justify with evidence that reality is all natural, they assumed a lot and presented it to you as truth. I used actual dictionaries to define the debate's topic and am thusly the only debater so far to give you actual meanings to work with in order to interpret it as resolved true or false (I argue it's false).”
I don’t know what the pro wants me to do to justify that reality is natural. I think it’s the safest and most non-schizophrenic assumption one could make.
You’re really moving the goal-post if your argument on why transgenderism is unnatural hinges on arguing that reality itself isn’t natural, quantum randomness somehow disproves the observable and mechanical laws of nature, and that we live in some sort of simulation.
My argument hinges on assuming that reality works how we observe it to.
“In summary, because they have a gender identity that does not match the biological sex of the individual, those that are transgender are neither in accordance with nature or consistent with the 'normal course of events' nor 'normal human feelings or behavior'. Since that is the definition of 'unnatural' it follows that being transgender is, in fact, unnatural.”
If self-identifying as the other sex is natural, and I just showed how it certainly could be [and it would have to be by the deterministic-natural-world logic/position I presented, which the opponent tried to disprove with—I think—simulation theory], and it is a natural behavior for animals to alter their sex, then attempting to alter one’s appearance, as well as attempting to physiologically alter one’s sex, would both be natural.
We are social animals, and we give social and sexual signals through our appearance. This is a natural human behavior. As social and visual animals, part of altering one’s sex would be altering one’s appearance.
Then, if someone identifies as the opposite sex/gender, and they wish to become more like that sex or gender, it would follow, naturally, this individual would seek medical treatment to be like the opposite sex.
Thus, transgenderism, cross-dressing, cosmetic changes and sexual reassignment procedures are all natural, and, broadly, these are the primary sub-categories contained under "transgender".
“Pro has yet to prove how in any shape or form being transgender fails to meet these criteria of 'unnatural'.”
Come and do your worst, my friend.
Rather than reply to whatever new stuff Pro decided to erroneously leave to the last Round, I shall bullet point this debate for you voters to follow, structurally.
- Pro starts saying (and now adds on still saying, in Round 3) that becayse reality is deterministic in Pro's opinion, therefore all unnatural things have to be natural.
- Pro fails to define 'natural', 'unnatural', 'being', 'transgender' and 'cisgender'. All framework was provided by me and only me in this debate.
- I defined unnatural as being against the standard, normal course of events for humans, which transgenderism inherently is.
- The remainder of the debate from Pro consists of looking at some things regarding transgenderism EXCEPT being it, instead inventions and social progress are explored as being natural. Pro also mentions transsexualism in amorphous species to absurdly prove the debate as resolved in favour of Pro.
- I handle this in Round 2, separating sex from gender and making clear why Pro is going outside the boundaries of the debate to avoid admitting error in the debate topic as it is worded and the scope it is constrained to.
- Pro repeats the off-topic tangents and adds some new fluff to the case in Round 3. It us clearly intentional since I am the only one who offered framework and definitions while Pro keeps trying to dance around the scope of discussion that they consttrain the debate to.
Something which may prove very useful to you in future:
Vote if you want to, thanks.
I thought I was debating Pro for transgender is unnatural, when I said it is true (I made this error twice) it is obvious what I meant.
"However, I will offer 2 counter-Kritiks before proceeding to explain why the resolution is pretty much inherently true once we observe the actual definitions of 'natural' and 'transgender'."
I meant 'inherently false' I got confused for a second there, I'll correct in Round 2.
Welcome to the site. Please do stick around for your debates, even when your opponents disagree with you (you're basically asking them to by initiating).
Are you transgender? Most cisgender people wouldn't post this as a debate.