Instigator / Pro
7
1763
rating
29
debates
98.28%
won
Topic
#3507

THBT: We ought to use the definition of “female” which prohibits non biological females from being female.

Status
Finished

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

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

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

Bones
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
17,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Description

THBT: We ought to use the definition of “female” which prohibits non biologically female beings from being female.

Definitions
Sex - a scientifically and biologically grounded concept which differences between "male" and "female".
Gender - the way in which one feels in relation to their sex.

Rules
1. No arguments made in bad faith i.e, kritiks.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.
6. Only Nyxified can accept this challenge.

Doesn't Caitlyn Jenner prove Nyxified's arguments?

-->
@Nyxified

I definitely enjoyed the contest as I felt that you honestly engaged with my arguments. Thanks for a good debate!

I'll probably put a vote on this sometime in the future. I haven't read it all just yet. Its quite a hefty text.

"To think otherwise logically leads to conversion therapy, which we have known doesn't work for decades[1&2]."

Genuinely don't know why the constant insistence in linking to journalist articles instead of the actual research papers, but when you actually look into the details you automatically see why these papers are worthless to begin with.
The first one was done by, and I quote from the actual paper, "a survey was distributed through community-based outreach to transgender adults residing in the United States", which means it automatically excludes people that went through non-conforming methods that no longer identify as trans, which makes the data absolutely worthless by any honest metric (as there becomes zero way to determine if it had any positive effect or how much of one because it is limiting itself to those where it didn't work).

The second one was literally funded by those wanting to end the practice that was ultimately condemned, and there are numerous studies out there that show that researchers will often be biased in order to meet the desired outcome of the people funding them (as it leads to more funding in the future), it conflated "conversion therapies" done to homosexuals and people with gender dysphoria, interviewed people that still identify as LGBT, and reviewed studies that suffer the same exact problem as the first one linked.

The fact that this is often the issue, where methodological problems are abundant, when it comes to studies in regards to gender dysphoria is a joke that makes the overwhelming majority of the papers absolutely worthless.

-->
@Bones

I in no way expect to win this debate. I feel as though the bias on this site alone would render that an impossibility, though I'm open to being surprised.

Nevertheless, thank you for this debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did! You're truly deserving of that 100% winrate.

-->
@Bones

No worries! I'm grateful for your kindness nonetheless.

-->
@Nyxified

I've gone over the 10k mark, but a lot of it is just me quoting what you said (a seriously large portion).

-->
@Nyxified

I've got my copium tank right next to me. Taking a puff right now, you want some? Bones has been "guilty" of doing this in the past too. I hold them accountable for it as well.

-->
@Ehyeh

Cope harder

Outside of insults, There's nothing i find more dishonorable in a debate than telling people to vote for you at the end of your arguments.

-->
@Intelligence_06

I agree. Your comment effectively summarizes all my hesitation to debate this particular resolution (I don't expect to win tbh, but it's fun nonetheless).

-->
@Bones

"I add that, even if it can be found that there is some biological condition which makes people feel as though they are the opposite gender, this does not support CON's argument - even if there is a biological grounds for trans individuals beliefs, the question becomes are those beliefs valid and do they correspond to reality? After all, is objectively the case that, if someone wishes to identify as a mouse, some part of their brain corresponds these desires, however, despite the presence of the biological groundings of such beliefs, we can still exclude these beliefs as absurd and incongruent with reality. "

Once you open the box, that sex isn't always binary. The door is then opened for other potential lines to be drawn on what constitutes someone's sex. I assume there's a difference between someone identifying as a mouse and the opposite gender. As secondary sex characteristics exist on a spectrum. Which means we all have some feminine and masculine features. In terms of animals, there isn't "animal" and "human" features in our minds. There isn't really a distinction which can be made where we can say "this is an animal feature" and "this is a human feature" in someone's mind like we can with sex. Is a genetically engineered "mouse" with a human brain still a mouse or would it attain personhood? This mouse would love the music I do, feel the way I do and think as such. His genes are as mine in the mental aspect. Since you're a solipsist, shouldn't the makeup of the mind hold more weight than the makeup of body? to me this debate just shows how little we understand transgenderism still. To me, still considering the "mouse" a mouse would be identity erasure of his human aspects, and his human ancestry.

It's just a distinction thing. Do you need the distinction where "I think I am a woman" more or "I have a vagina" more?

-->
@Nyxified

No worries, I'll try my best to keep it around the 10k mark.

Forgone conclusion

-->
@Bones

I've decided I'm good for a third round, but I would like to keep the 3rd round under 7.5k-10k characters if you're okay with that. Thanks again

I'd love to debate this if nyx finds it a bit tricky in the end!

-->
@Nyxified

So work to change the definition of woman, not female. Biology should not cower to social bullying.

-->
@RationalMadman

RMM, Google the definition of 'woman'. It's just an adult female.

Language is defined by its users and not its scholars. I'm curious how you think this is 'heteronormative', and I find it rich that you say that as a straight person to a gay person. I can attach a big "says who?" to everything you just said, but even if you could provide a satisfactory answer, it still wouldn't change the fact that 99.99999% of people use them effectively interchangeably.

The closest difference you'll get is that a woman is an adult female. Next to nobody differentiates between these terms on the basis of sex or gender roles.

This entire conversation about if woman and female mean the same thing is utterly pointless. You know what I was trying to say when I was talking with Bones in the comments of the previous debate. Regardless of which of us is correct, there is fundamentally no difference in anything I've said.

-->
@Bones

I believe I'll be fine for now, but I'll message you after my first round speech if I think that's necessary (I'd say my 2nd round speech, but that might screw you over). Thanks for your consideration!

-->
@Nyxified

Let's continue on your debate.

Woman is the default gender role that society assigned cisgendered adult females and that used to not need to be specified. It is a different gender role to lady, chick/bird, dame, vixen, slut, whore and tomboy (and plenty of other gender roles that adult females could fulfil, depending on your idea of a 'role') and it is you who doesn't understand that female is sex and not gender and that in all species that aren't human (including plant species) this is made crystal clear.

Girl used to exclusively be the role that non-adult females filled but over time that's changed to include adult females (or trans males) in it.

You are supporting heteronormative dictionary dictionaries to cut your nose to spite your face.

I find it fascinating that you'd rather change the biological definition of female than the gender role definition of woman to include male-sex trans women.

-->
@Nyxified

We could perhaps make this a 2 round debate if you are busy? I assume you will almost max out your 17,000 character limit so the debate will already be quite substantial.

This will probably be my last debate on this site for a while. Figured I'd ought to conduct my second absence with a bit more order and a bit less forfeiting.