Instigator / Pro
4
1488
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

"Trans women are women" Is A Valid Claim

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Novice_II
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1662
rating
15
debates
90.0%
won
Description
~ 643 / 5,000

I will argue that it is valid to claim that biological males who honestly identify as trans women are women in a least one reasonable sense of the word "woman". It will be my burden to argue that they can claim to be women and it be actually true. It will be the burden of the contender to argue that only adult human biological females can reasonably be called women, and that calling biological males "women" in any sense is unreasonable.

Round 1 will be opening arguments (Con will not be required to respond to any of my arguments until round 2)

Round 2 will be for rebuttals

Round 3 will be for closing arguments and closing rebuttals

Round 1
Pro
What Is A Woman?

Traditionally a woman has been defined as “an adult human female being”. One might be tempted to argue that since transwomen are biological males that, by definition, they simply cannot be women. The issue with that argument is that it assumes the term “woman” can only have one definition. That argument is flawed because secondary definitions for words that traditionally only had one meaning are common. I think the traditional definition is a good definition if we mean a "woman" biologically in terms of sex, but what about a woman psychologically in terms of gender?

Webster Dictionary states that if one has “a distinctly feminine nature” [1] then they are a woman, which is a good place to start for a definition in terms of gender.
However, I think we can expand it to:

“An adult human with a predominantly feminine psychology”.

This definition is a little more detailed and captures the essence of a definition we would want for a “woman” in terms of gender.

Words With New Additional Definitions

What are some words that used to only have one traditional definition, and now have another? One example I can give is the word “cloud”.
Cloud has traditionally meant “a visible mass of particles of condensed vapor (such as water or ice) suspended in the atmosphere of a planet (such as the earth) or moon”. It has other traditional meanings as well (referring to “clouded” judgement for example).

However, a newer definition for cloud is “a computer network where files and programs can be stored, especially on the internet”.

This new meaning of cloud didn’t emerge until 2006.

Was Ted Bundy Cold Blooded?

If someone were to ask if Ted Bundy was “cold blooded’ or not, the question could only make sense if the person who asked it clarified if they meant cold blooded biologically, or cold blooded psychologically. Ted Bundy was a mammal so he was no cold blooded biologically, but he lacked pity and empathy and thus was cold blooded by definition psychologically (he was a “cold blooded” killer).

In a similar sense, it is reasonable for the term “woman” to have a traditional biological meaning and a newer psychological meaning as the one I outlined previously.

Conclusion

I said that I will argue that it is valid to claim that biological males who honestly identify as trans women are women in a least one reasonable sense of the word "woman". I showed that one word can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym) and outlined a reasonable definition of woman in terms of gender that can apply to trans women who are biological males.

Any claim that the term "woman" can ONLY refer to adult human females is making a false claim as semantic changes are very common in the English Language.

Therefore, It is indeed valid to say that "trans women are women" at least in terms of gender and the burden of proof on my behalf has been met.
 
Sources





Con
Resolved: Trans women are women" Is A Valid Claim
  • Valid: sound; just; well-founded:

Overview
  • We are debating the validity of a propositional assertion. Proposition a is the resolution. 
  • To affirm the resolution, my opponent is burdened to make an argument that indicates the truth of this proposition.
  • For this proposition to be valid, my opponent must successfully include every trans person in the world under such a definition. This isn't an assertion that some trans women are women, but that all of them are. 

Proposition a is the resolution: "'trans women are women' is a valid claim."
  • My propositional case for claim validity: For proposition a to be true and valid, all trans women must describe within the parameters of my opponent's definition. 

What is a woman? 
  • Pro's definition of a woman is "An adult human with a predominantly feminine psychology." 
  • Does this include all trans people? The answer is no. Many transgender people certainly don't have feminine psychology and nevertheless identify as trans women. Just like the biological interpretation, trans women exist in all forms and mental states. Pro's definition simply tells that some trans people could be women not that trans women are women, making the claim "trans women are women" invalid by his own assertion. 
  • Secondly, what defines feminine psychology? This seems like an arbitrary ontological category for which my opponent has provided no criteria. If we have no basis to evaluate feminine psychology anyone or no one could be a woman and the category would simply be meaningless.
  • Pro could posit that there is a strict testable classification of this psychology, but that would mean that any "trans woman" that does not meet such criteria would simply not be a woman, and such would falsify the proposition as true because it fails to include all trans women. In essence: 
          • p1. For the proposition a to be true pro's definition must describe all trans women within its parameters. 
          • p2. Pro's definition does not describe all trans women within its parameters.
          • c. Proposition a is not true, and is thus, not a valid claim. 
  • Conclusively: pro must argue that "trans women are women," is in itself a true proposition, however, pro's definition only asserts that some trans women could be women, or that we don't know who is and is not a woman as he has proposed no ontological grounding for his case. 
  • As the proposition expressed in the resolution is false and unproven, the claim is invalid. 

Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
It is reasonable for the term “woman” to have a traditional biological meaning and a newer psychological meaning as the one I outlined previously.
  • Here pro argues that we ought to define women psychologically in addition to biologically. 
  • Take the case that there are many men who on average have psychological temperaments that are closer to the average among women. There are both effeminate men and masculine women.
  • Under pro's view, effeminate men could be women and masculine women by converse could simply be men despite having no personal identification or active will toward such. Pro would have to argue that an individual can be both a woman and not a woman, in itself a logical contradiction. 
  • Overarchingly, I argue: 
        • p1. A valid definition of a woman must differentiate between men and women. 
        • p2. Pro's definition does not differentiate between men and women
        • c. Pro has not validly defined a woman. 

Distribution of Psychology
  • In addition, men and women are psychologically more similar than different [1]. In any psychological distribution between men and women, there is a large encompassing overlapping area between them and pole extremes that set respective modes. Take agreeableness or aggressiveness (images cited) as examples. Syllogistically: 
        • p1. To validly define a woman based on feminine psychology, an established methodology must exist to identify such. 
        • p2. Pro has not provided a methodology and can not identify such psychology.
        • c. Pro has not validly defined women.
  • Pro defines a woman as "an adult human with a predominantly feminine psychology." The empirical question must be what constitutes predominately feminine psychology when the majority of men and women psychologically coincide with one another?

B. Regional distribution
  • Secondly, by what means do we evaluate this feminine psychology? The largest study on gender personality differences shows that "personality differences between the sexes are largest in the most gender equal countries" [2]. Could one be a woman in one country and become a man once they travel to another? Pro's case weirdly suggests this.  
  • Additionally, must we accurately identify the global average of psychological traits in order to define feminine psychology? In that case, the resolution must be false because we don't have this information yet. 
  • If we do get such information, that would make the average range of traits less distinct given that less equal societies have fewer psychological differences [2]. This would invalidate more trans women as women (as pro defines), and further prevent us from telling the difference between men and women. 

Secondary definitions 
  • Pro brings up examples of other words that have different meanings such as the word "cloud." 
  • Conclusively, pro is trying to redefine women in a supplementary way to accommodate trans individuals. The biological conception is as pro acknowledges the traditional definition of a woman. Both descriptions: traditional and proposed by pro seek to categorically interpret reality around a range of characteristics predicated upon and around biological sex. 
  • To state it simply; pro is trying to supplement the ontological category of the traditional and commonplace definition of a woman.
  • One could easily define a woman as a dog, but that would be futile and irrelevant to our discussion of expanding the criterion from which a woman is defined by biological sex. In a similar sense cloud computing and cloud used in weather fall under distinctively different planes of ontology and have no supplementary relationship with one another despite being the same word. 

The biological definition
  • As I have shown, each reduction reinforces the idea that the "traditional definition," as pro labels it, serves as the reasonable definition of a woman, and pro's definition is simply unreasonable. As a recall, we are debating whether or not "trans women are women," is a valid claim. The resolution fails; its proposition has been proven false. 

Conclusion
I...outlined a reasonable definition of woman in terms of gender that can apply to trans women who are biological males.
  • Has pro? Well, pro must argue that trans women are women. So far he has made a case that says:
    1. Some trans women could be women based on some floating vacuum of non-existent ontology.
    2. Pro doesn't know the criterion that makes one a woman: thus there exists no determining metric and anyone could be one or not one. In other words a vacuum of ontology. Meaninglessness.
    3. People can be women and not women at the same time.

Sources
  1. https://www.apa.org/
  2. https://www.gu.se/

Round 2
Pro
Con’s Overview

For this proposition to be valid, my opponent must successfully include every trans person in the world under such a definition. This isn't an assertion that some trans women are women, but that all of them are.” - Con
 
First of all, this debate is about trans women not trans people in general. There are trans men that obviously have nothing to do with this debate about trans women. Thus, Con mentioning “trans people” in general is nothing but sloppy work on behalf of my opponent.
 
Most importantly, there is simply no criteria that demands that all trans people or (even all trans women) being women being a valid claim is necessary for me to meet my burden of proof. Even if *some* trans women being women is reasonable, then the burden of proof has been met on my end. For example, if I say “dogs bark” is a valid claim, that is not the same as saying that “*all* dogs bark” is a valid claim. It is a true statement that “dogs bark” even if there are some dogs that do not bark.

Therefore, the completely contrived requirement from Con that *all* trans women must be women in order for me to meet my burden makes absolutely no sense and must be rejected.

What Is A Woman?

Con said “Does this include all trans people? The answer is no”. The issue with this statement, once again, is that we are discussing trans women specifically not just “trans people”. Trans men for example have nothing to do with this debate, thus mentioning trans people in general is nothing but a fallacious red-herring.

Also, even if some trans women are women then I have self-evidently met my burden of proof. Once again, “dogs bark” is a valid claim even if there are some dogs that do not bark. Similarly, “trans women are women” is a valid claim even if there were some trans women who are not women.

Con simply doesn't hit his desired target here from a logical standpoint.

I have also been challenged to define what a feminine psychology is. This is rather simple, as we are talking about “the underlying general mental states that are typically found in females in comparison to males”.

It is well known that females in general have, in general, a different psychology than males typically. There is an article called “Understanding Female Psychology”[1] which discusses this in length. Many journals discuss this too such as “The Psychology of Women Quarterly” [2].

It has been shown scientifically that biological males who honestly identify as trans women have a predominantly feminine psychology based on their brain activity that is actually closer to typical biological females than typical biological males[3].

In summary, I have outlined a clear and reasonable definition of woman in terms of gender which those trans women who identify as woman clearly satisfy… My burden of proof in this debate has been clearly met without any shadow of a reasonable doubt.

Now,  the traditional definition of “woman” is still valid as long as it’s known we are talking about women *biologically* rather than*psychologically*.
 
Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation

“Pro would have to argue that an individual can be both a woman and not a woman, in itself a logical contradiction.” - Con

Such a thing would only be a contradiction if one was to commit a basic fallacy of equivocation. It is not a contradiction, for example, to say “Ted Bundy was not cold blooded, and he was cold blooded” because we are talking about two completely different meanings of the term “cold blooded”. Ted Bundy was not cold blooded biologically (as he was a mammal) but he was coldblooded psychologically (as he lacked empathy). Thus, the statement “Ted Bundy was not cold blooded, and he was cold blooded” is certainly not a contradiction. Again, it would only be a contradiction if by “cold blooded” we were talking about *the exact same definition*.

Similarly, to say some women are not women is a completely valid claim as long as we understand that we are using two different definitions of the term “woman”.
Some biological women are not psychological women, and some biological men are psychological women. 

It really is that simple.

Distribution of Psychology

“men and women are psychologically more similar than different”– Con

This point is obviously true, and wholly irrelevant.

There are more similarities than differences when comparing a Granny Smith apple to a McIntosh apple as well, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t noticeable and measurable differences.

Con, once again, completely misses the mark.

Regional distribution

The largest study on gender personality differences shows that "personality differences between the sexes are largest in the most gender equal countries”. Could one be a woman in one country and become a man once they travel to another? Pro's case weirdly suggests this.' - Con

Con’s logic here is extremely bizarre.

The study was pertaining to the people in that region, not the actual piece of land. Thus, travelling to another piece of land would not change anything as that person in the study would still be the same person. Thus, the idea that my definition suggests that one’s changes gender just because of a region change severely misunderstands my case and the study he mentions.
 
Secondary definitions 

“To state it simply; pro is trying to supplement the ontological category of the traditional and commonplace definition of a woman.” - Con

This could not be farther from the truth and completely shows a misunderstanding of the case that I am making.

The definition of woman pertaining to biology (“an adul thuman female being”) still remains completely valid and intact despite any psychological definition of woman that can also be used. I am not advocating for any replacement or supplement at all; that is clearly a straw-man.

“One could easily define a woman as a dog, but that would be futile and irrelevant to our discussion of expanding the criterion from which a woman is defined by biological sex.” - Con

A dog is a different species and has nothing to do with human femininity or anything to do with womanhood so this comparison is certainly not based on any charitable interpretation of my case by any means.

If Con does not like the “cloud” comparison let us stick with “cold blooded’. The term “cold blooded” psychologically is related to the term “coldblooded” biologically, as biologically cold blooded animals tend to not have any empathy or pity when they hurt another animal, while animals that are warm blooded (like chimps) do show empathy and pity. Ted Bundy might not have been cold blooded biologically, but he certainly was psychologically. Similarly, Caitlyn Jenner may not be a woman biologically, but she certainly is psychologically.

Thus, Con has failed to even come close to meeting his burden of proof. He has given us no reason at all to think that only a biological definition for “woman” is valid and not a psychological definition. 
 
The Biological Definition
 
As I have shown, some terms can have multiple meanings, some (like “cold blooded”) have a biological and psychological meaning. Con has given us absolutely no reason to suggest that only the biological definition is valid when there are terms that have both biological and psychological meanings. What makes the term “woman” so special that it can *only* have a biological meaning? Absolutely nothing. I have proven that it is completely valid to claim that “trans women are women” it at least one sense of the word (a psychological sense in terms of gender). Therefore, the resolution has been established.
 
Conclusion
 
Con’s responses have been severely disappointing as they don’t come close to accurately describing my case and he engages is many basic logical errors in a failed attempt to take down my case. Even more disappointingly, he doesn’t even attempt to argue for his side that only a biological definition for women is valid; he only attempts to take my case down while refusing to make one of his own.
 
It is very concerning that he criticizes my definition for not including “all trans people” which is absolutely absurd as we aren’t discussing all trans people; just trans women (trans men have nothing to do with this discussion). Also, any claim that is made in terms of generalities doesn’t require it to be true for every case. Therefore, his assertion that my claim must be true for all trans women is confusing to say the least. Again, “dog’s bark” is valid claim even if it is false that all dogs bark.
 
I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that under are reasonable definition of “woman” (in terms of gender and not sex), that “transwomen are women” is a valid claim. It is still valid that they are not women in terms of biology, but that does not mean it invalid to claim they are women in terms of psychology.
 
Therefore, my burden of proof has been met in this debate and the resolution has been established.
 
Con has failed to even try to meet his burden of proof.
 
Sources
 

Con

Overview
  1. Our resolution is 'trans women are women is a valid claim. Pro's burden is to prove this proposition true, my burden is to prove it false. 
  2. This is not some trans women could be women, but that all trans women are women. With the absence of specifications, pro commits himself to arguing that all trans women that exist are women under his definition. 
  3. Do not let pro distract you from the resolution. If the resolution is a false proposition, the claim is invalid and pro loses the debate. 

Openers
"dogs bark"
  • Pro tries to reject p1 of my first syllogism but makes a very obvious mistake. Barking is a function, not an ontology. This is a case of teleology vs ontology. 
  • Functions are described with teleology, identities are described with ontology. A teleological claim will be rationally valid if it is grounded in a reasonable interpretation of an organism's ontological classification. In essence, teleology depends on ontology. 
  • When you assert that trans women are women you state that all trans women fall under the same ontological category you have defined. In a similar sense, if you assert tigers are cats, you argue that every tiger that exists falls under the feline taxonomy. 
  • The correct analogy would be with the claim dogs are canids. This means that every dog that exits is of the canidaes family.
  • Therefore, if even one trans person in the world does not fall under pro's definition, he has not met his burden of proof. 

Notes
  • Remember, we don't even know who falls under pro's definition.
  • Pro has not given a methodology or criteria for his "feminine psychology." This could mean anything. As long as this remains the case the resolution fails as we simply don't know who is and who is not a woman. Pro's definition does not show that "trans women are women," is a valid claim. It asserts that some trans women may or may not be women and we have no idea which is which. 
  • Pro seems to concede that his definition does not apply to all trans women. There are trans women in all forms of mental states that pro has not accounted for. Frankly, we don't know how many trans women it applies to. Pro has not told us what "predominately feminine psychology" is and has shown no evidence all trans women possess such within a methodology. The resolution fails in every aspect. 

What Is A Woman?
underlying general mental states that are typically found in females in comparison to males
  • These are words that don't say anything. What is the methodology within this that decides what makes one a woman or not? Which mental states? How many? 
  • What is a "predominately" female psychology? Which traits are required to be possessed, and to what degree does it become predominant? Pro has no ontological grounding for what he asserts here. This could mean anything. 
  • The source pro cites is really bad. It talks about topics from Myers-Briggs tests to alpha vs beta females. It provides nothing useful. Is pro saying that anyone who doesn't have a certain Myers-Briggs personality type isn't a woman? 
even if some trans women are women then I have self-evidently met my burden of proof
  • False. The claim is that "trans women," are women not some trans women are women. Some could be 2 people. 
  • Pro has not proven that a single trans woman is a woman based on his definition because his classification of "feminine psychology" floats in a meaningless ontology. 

Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
"It is not a contradiction"
  • Like the cloud example, these are distinctively different ontological planes. Our conception of women is of the same ontology. We seek to characterize individuals based on characteristics predicated upon the female sex. 
  • Pro's definition is supplementary in nature. It is constructed around the same mode of ontology as the biological definition. If pro denies this his definition is ontologically meaningless and has the same justification as defining women as cats. Arbitration
  • It is a contradiction to affirm the negation of a proposition within the same ontology. If pro is creating a new ontology he is simply not defining women but some random ungrounded metaphysical value. Conclusively: 
  1. Pro posits his definition should secondary the traditional definition of woman.
  2. Pro's definition falls under the same ontology as the traditional one. 
  3. If pro's definition falls under the same ontology it ought to include all women not just trans women. 
  4. Pro uses examples of homonyms that have distinctively different ontologies. To be consistent with his definition of woman, he must deny any ontological relationship. 
  5. If so, he is not defining a woman but a meaningless metaphysical object and loses any justification. 

Distribution of Psychology
  • Pro drops my argument here. I extend it. 
  • Pro hones in on the fact that "men and women are psychologically more similar than different" and does not respond/object to any of my premises. 
  • Distributions of gendered psychological traits overlap in paradigm, and have extreme minor outliers set the modes. As stated, the empirical question is what constitutes predominately feminine psychology when the majority of men and women psychologically coincide with one another.
  • As we know men and women are extremely similar and overwhelmingly overlap psychologically, there would be nothing that separates the majority of women from the majority of men. There would be no essential psychological difference. 
  • I extend my syllogism of differentiation between men and women. Pro drops every premise and thus my conclusion. As pro cannot differentiate between men and women with his definition, the resolution fails. 

Regional distribution
The study was pertaining to the people in that region
  • Correct
travelling to another piece of land would not change anything
  • Pro takes the second path of responding to my point, insisting that the person maintains their identity as a woman while traveling to areas that have vastly different average gender psychological inclinations. 
  • This means pro is suggesting that this "feminine psychology," he describes is based on a global average and not a regional one. This makes my opponent's burden much larger. 
  • As stated: "the resolution must be false because we don't have this information yet." Pro has presented no evidence that shows the average global psychological temperaments. Given this, under pro's logic, we simply don't know who is a woman or a man. 
  • As countries that are less gender egalitarian have fewer gender psychological differences, this would reduce the modal difference between men and women, and thus pro's definition would exclude more trans women.
  • Under pro's definition, we don't know who is or isn't a woman. Pro hasn't told us what a "predominately feminine psychology," consists of. 

Secondary definitions
"The definition of woman pertaining to biology (“an adul thuman [sic] female being”) still remains completely valid and intact"
  • Pro concedes the biological definition is valid here. We have a baseline. As I have shown pro's definition is invalid, he has currently not upheld his burden, and mine stands upheld. 
Cold-blooded
  • My response to the cloud analogy also applies to the cold-blooded one. If pro drops his argument based on my rebuttal, he must also drop this one. 
A dog is a different species and has nothing to do with human femininity or anything
  • Pro acknowledges that definitions that operate on distinctively different ontological planes are invalid to the range of traits we wish to classify. This refutes all his examples.
  • Now, pro says we should not re-define dogs as women. So why should we secondarily define women with meaningless feminine psychology with no criteria, evidence, or factors? 
  • Should we define disabled people as people with body integrity identity disorder (BIID) who want to be disabled? 
  • Different animals as people who believe they are animals trapped in the wrong body
  • Even age to people who psychologically feel a certain age
      • p1. If psychology is not sufficient to add a new definition to ontological identities it is not sufficient to add a definition to women.
      • p2. Psychology is not sufficient to add a definition to such ontological identities.
      • c. It is not sufficient to add a definition to women. 

The Biological Def.
  • This was the summation of my entire constructive. 
  • Pro seems to say that I have given no reason to believe that the biological or traditional definition is valid. I have, and pro even concedes that it is valid here in quote: 
The definition of woman pertaining to biology (“an adul thuman [sic.] female being”) still remains completely valid and intact
  • I argued in round one that the reductions from con's position make him unable to show who is a woman or not show that the traditional definition is the most reasonable and valid definition of a woman. All other points are truisms. 
  • I'll place it simply for my opponent: The definition based on biology fulfills all the arguments I posit. Pro's fills none of them. 
    • Ontologically consistent and grounded. 
    • Differentiates between men and women. 
    • Has an objectively established methodology (sex: the biological reproductive role of human organisms). 
    • Does not suffer from all the reductions pro seems to struggle with. 
  • Con is welcome to challenge any of these points.

Conclusion
  • Pro must prove that "trans women are women," is a valid claim. This means all trans women. 
    • Does pro's definition include all trans women? No. Pro does not even dispute this. We don't even know who it includes making it essentially meaningless. 
    • Does pro's definition differentiate between men and women? No. 
    • Is pro's definition ontologically grounded? no. Consistent? no. 
    • Valid? no. 


Round 3
Pro
My Overview

If the term “woman” has two reasonable meanings (one in terms of biology/sex, and another in terms psychology/ gender), then the resolution is trivially true; and I have shown exactly why that is the case. Con must prove that proposition false to even begin meeting his burden of proof of showing that only one definition of woman can be reasonable, yet Con has not even attempted to argue that no other definition of woman could be reasonable and thus cannot win the debate until he does.

We Are Discussing Trans Women, Not Trans People In General

Con says “if even one trans person in the world does not fall under pro's definition, he has not met his burden of proof”. This claim is obviously false as we are discussing trans women not trans people in general. Trans men are trans people after all, but obviously if my definition does not apply to them that would not hurt my case at all. 

Con then makes the odd claim that we do not know who falls under my definition, but of course we do. A trans woman is an adult biological male who is a woman in terms of gender and not sex.

What Is a Woman?

I clearly defined what I meant by feminine psychology and all Con did was say “those words don’t mean anything”. I am honestly baffled at such a non-response. I assure you, that every word I uttered means something. All one has to do is have a basic grasp on the English language to comprehend the words, either that or just use the dictionary to look up the meaning of the words. I urge voters to note that Con’s failure to grasp the meaning of words does not entail that the words have no meaning.

Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation

I already mentioned in this debate that if Con if doesn’t like the term “cloud” then he should attack my analogy regarding “cold blooded” as they are on the same ontological plane. The term “cold blooded” has both a biological meaning and a psychological meaning just like the term “woman” does. The term “coldblooded” in terms of psychology means to lack empathy or pity. This is trait is typically found in cold blooded animals like reptiles. This is a perfect example to show how one can be X psychologically without being X biologically.

Ted Bundy was not cold blooded biologically but he was cold blooded psychologically.

Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman biologically but she is psychologically.

Distribution of Psychology

Con dropped my refutation of his section here. He argues that there is more overlap than in psychology than differences but this point doesn’t have any relevance. Once again, there is more overlap than differences when comparing a Granny Smith apple to a McIntosh apple as well; that doesn’t mean there aren’t differences. It is the differences that matter here, no matter how small.

Secondary Definitions

Con made a quick modus ponens argument here. P2 is “ Psychology is not sufficient to add a definition to such ontological identities”. If this is true then “cold blooded” would only be in reference to biology and thus Ted Bundy was not a cold blooded killer. Ted Bundy was, however, a cold blooded killer. This is only possible because of a psychological definition added to the term “cold blooded”. Therefore, P2 is false. Cold blooded animals typically lack any empathy or pity unlike warm blooded animals like chimps, which is why this secondary definition of cold blooded in terms of psychology is relevant.

Con mentions people who desire to have missing limbs; this is not relevant to the discussion at all unfortunately. Trans women do not “desire” to be biological females, they just have psychological states that are typically and usually unique to biological females. Gender is not about desire like Body Integrity Identity disorder is, so this comparison fails.
 
What about people who believe they are animals trapped inside the wrong body? This would only be analogous to the gender issue if the person had the psychology of a wolf while being biologically human. There are literally 0 examples of this. If someone had the mental state of a wolf and not a human, then they would not sit upright on chairs their mind would instinctively push them on all fours, they would not speak the English language and only make wolf noises, they would be able to communicate with wolves, and they would instinctively attack animals and eat them raw. No human has the psychology of a wolf like some males have the psychology of a typical female. Therefore, this comparison isn’t even close to accurate.

What about feeling you are a different age? This is not analogous unless they actually are a different age mentally. This would only hold in rare cases down syndrome. They are an adult biologically but a child mentally.

The Biological Definition

“Pro seems to say that I have given no reason to believe that the biological or traditional definition is valid.” - Con

This could not be further from the truth. Of course the biological definition is valid as I have stated many times, my only contention is that the psychological definition is valid as well. One definition of woman is in terms of sex, the other in terms of gender.

Con’s burden is not to show that the biological definition is valid. Con’s burden is to show that only the biological definition of woman is valid as the debate outline clearly states.

Con has failed to even attempt to meet his burden of proof.
 
Does The Ambiguity of a Term Entail The Non-Reasonableness of a Definition Using That Term?

Con’s main argument here is that there is some ambiguity in what constitutes a “feminine psychology”, and that this apparent fluidify renders the psychological definition in terms of gender unreasonable. The issue with this argument is it is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn’t follow that because a definition includes terms that are somewhat ambiguous (the term “feminine”) that the definition is unreasonable. The word “universe” is defined by Oxford as “the whole of space and everything in it” [1] for example, and this definition is completely reasonable even though the word “space” is slightly ambiguous as there is much we don’t know about “space” just like there is much we don’t know about “femininity”. Is space discrete or continuous? Is it best described by Loop Quantum Gravity, or String Theory? Before Einstein, the idea that space was a bendable fabric wasn’t even considered. What is the point I am making? The point I am making is that even though “space” is somewhat ambiguous in the sense that we don’t know nearly everything about it and different theories about it contradict each other, that doesn’t mean a definition which includes it is unreasonable. Similarly, we are still learning about femininity and what exactly constitutes it but that doesn’t mean a definition of “woman” which uses it is unreasonable.

This fact alone destroys Con’s entire case.

Is “Femininity” A Valid Concept?

According to science the answer is “yes”. A study in 2015 concluded that “When examined as a whole, individual expressions of femininity reveal distinct patterns. These themes become reinforced throughout different social institutions such as media, education, religion, sports, and the work force.” [2].

Despite us not knowing everything about femininity, and their being theories about it that contradict each other (just like there are theories about space that contradict each other) it is a valid concept in the field of psychology.

If One Is A Man In Terms Of Sex, Does This Entail They Are A Man In Terms Of Gender?

Webster defines Gender as “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” [3]. With this definition in place we can see that the answer is definitely “no”. One can have the psychological traits that are typically unique to biological females without actually being a biological female. Oxford also makes it clear in their definition of gender that it should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, not differences in biology” [4].
Thus, Webster and Oxford make it clear that one might not be a woman in terms of sex but still be a woman in terms of gender.

This just further establishes the resolution with relative ease.

Conclusion

A “trans women” means, universally (not just “some), “an adult biological male that is a woman in terms of gender and not sex”.

Have I Met My Burden?

I have provided a definition of “woman” in terms of gender and not sex based on Webster and Oxford dictionary definitions. I have shown than any ambiguity in the term “femininity” does not render a definition which uses such a term unreasonable which was my opponent tried to argue.

My burden was to show that the term “trans women are women” is a valid claim in at least one sense of the term “women” as the debate outline states. I showed that this claim was valid in the sense of the term “woman” in terms of gender. Therefore, I have met my burden without a shadow of a doubt.

Has My Opponent Met His Burden?

Con never had to show that the term “woman” is valid in terms of sex and biology, as it is obviously valid and this was never disputed. Con’s burden was to show that the term “woman” could only reasonably bein reference to its meaning in terms of sex. Con’s burden is to show an exclusivity with regards to the meaning of the term “woman” and that no other meaning could be reasonable besides the biological meaning.

As the debate outline states “It will be the burden of the contender to argue that only adult human biological females can reasonably be called women, and that calling biological males 'women' in any sense is unreasonable.”

Con has not attempted once to meet his burden of proof, while I established the resolution multiple times over.
 
Sources


Con

we are discussing trans women, not trans people in general. 
  • Semantics. I am obviously referring to trans woman as this is the literal subject of the debate. Voters can ignore this. 

Overview
  1. Our resolution is trans women are women is a valid claim. Pro must prove that every trans woman that exists can be validly claimed to be a woman under his case.
  2. If the resolution is a false proposition, pro fails to affirm the resolution and loses the debate. 

Dropped Points
  • Voters can focus on these dropped points alone that show pro has failed to affirm the resolution. 
I. Ontology vs Teleology 
  • Pro drops his previous mistake of analyzing a teleological claim like an ontological one. 
  • This means as it stands if one trans woman in the world does not fall under pro's definition, he loses the debate. We have already shown this as truism as trans people exist in all temperaments and mental states many of which would fall out of "feminine psychology," even if pro told us what exactly this is. On this, pro has lost the debate already. 
II - Regional distribution
  • Pro fell into a trap where he was forced to affirm that despite large average gender psychological differences between regions, one would remain a woman if they relocated to an area where they don't have the average feminine psychology. 
  • This means that pro must argue that feminine psychology is a global average criterion. This would by truism show that pro has no idea who is and isn't a woman because the data that would differentiate between male and female psychology on such a scale does not exist. The resolution is epistemically unjustified and thus invalid. We don't know and can't know how many trans people fit under this definition. It is thus invalid to claim trans women are women. 
III - Methodology and differentiation
  • We have established that pro has given us no criteria for what "feminine psychology" is or means. He gave us a really bad (seemingly lazy/unread) source that talked about MTBI tests etc. 
  • Pro has not given X psychological criteria that make one a man or woman. Pro thus cannot differentiate between men and women. 
  • Conclusively: the claim "trans women are women," is invalid. 

What is a woman
"don’t mean anything"
  • Pro defines feminine psychology as "the underlying general mental states that are typically found in females in comparison to males." That could mean anything. Pro has not shown the specific criteria of mental states that make one a woman as opposed to a man. I even express this in round 2: 
These are words that don't say anything. What is the methodology within this that decides what makes one a woman or not? Which mental states? How many? What is a "predominately" female psychology? Which traits are required to be possessed, and to what degree does it become predominant? Pro has no ontological grounding for what he asserts here. 
  • The verdict is that pro has no ontological grounding for his position. He has not given us there method that distinguishes between masculine psychology and a feminine one so that one could ontologically exist as a man or woman. This makes pro lose the debate on its own. His definition is incoherent as it fails to differentiate between men and women.

Extension of psychological classifications and differentiation
The term “coldblooded” in terms of psychology means to lack empathy or pity. This is trait is typically found in cold blooded animals like reptiles.
  • Citation needed? 
  • Cold-blooded: (of a kind of animal) having a body temperature varying with that of the environment; poikilothermic. The difference between such and warm-blooded is how their bodies regulate body temperature. Cold-blooded animals like any sentient being have a range of emotions including empathy and attachment. Did pro even provide evidence that reptiles lack empathy or pity? 
  • We can conclusively say that a coined perspective of human emotions and the thermal regulation of body temperature are on distinctively different ontological planes. My argument stands unrefuted. 
Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman biologically but she is psychologically.
  • How do you prove that? How do you know Caitlyn Jenner isn't a psychological man? Pro has not given us a method to tell the difference. 

Distribution of Psychology
  • Extend. Pro says I drop his rebuttal essentially showing that he did not read anything in this section. 
there is more overlap than differences when comparing a Granny Smith apple to a McIntosh apple as well
  • The difference between these apples is physical characteristics and this is analogous to the biological definition. 
  • We can make distinguishing criteria with material characteristics, no one denies this. For gender psychology, it is nearly impossible to separate men and women by criterion. 
  • In the distribution, each human is an individual object. It is not to say there are no differences but there are no differences that would set a criterion between men and women where one goes from X a woman to Y a man because the psychological distribution has extremely large converse and extremely minor modes. 
  • My argument is that it is impossible to create a distinct psychological criterion, that evaluates a distinct difference between men and women, thus we cannot differentiate. Remember, pro has not even given us criteria as to what makes one a woman. 

Regional distribution
  • We discussed this in Dropped. Extend. 
  • Let's be clear. If pro's "feminine psychology," is not re-evaluated by region, it must be a global average. Pro has not given us this global average, and without this, we cannot possibly say trans women are women or that anyone is a psychological woman. This point is the debate. 

Secondary definitions
  • Pro tries to reject p2. however, we have already dealt with his case. Cold-blooded in respect to temperature regulation is on a completely and distinctly different ontological plane than a term coined to ponder human emotions. 
  • Thus, pro hasn't rejected p2. 
There are literally 0 examples of this...
  • Pro here repeats the exact same criticism of his position. He posits certain things one would have to do to have the psychology of a wolf, but does not do the same for women? This is of course special pleading. According to pro, a specific observable method must exist for animals, but not women. 
  • As long as we don't have the specific criteria of psychology that make a woman as opposed to a man, we simply have no idea who is or isn't a woman. 

The Biological Definition
  • The debate resolves that "trans women are women" is a valid claim. If this proposition is proven false, the debate defaults to con. 
I argued (in quote) that the biological definition is: 
  • Ontologically consistent and grounded. 
  • Differentiates between men and women. 
  • Has an objectively established methodology (sex: the biological reproductive role of human organisms). 
  • Does not suffer from all the reductions pro seems to struggle with.
  • I welcomed pro to challenge any of these points. Pro drops them all and objects to none. Apart from this, my job is to show that pro's concepted defintions are unreasonable. 
  • Ignore pro's lies about me secretly not meeting my burdens. Pro has failed to affirm the resolution and I have shown his claims to be invalid allowing us to default to the conceded validity of the biological definition. 

Ambiguity vs ontology
Con’s main argument here is that there is some ambiguity in what constitutes a “feminine psychology”
  • Incorrect. I argue there is no basis at all. I argue that there is no ontological grounding because you have not given us the methodology for the criterion of feminine psychology. This could mean anything. You have not given us parameters. You have not distinguished between men and women. My argument is that pro floats in a vacuum of ungrounded ontology. 
According to science the answer is “yes”
  • And what is the first thing that pro's own source asserts: "Conceptions of masculinity and femininity vary widely across cultures."
  • Recall, pro said that traveling to different areas will not change your identity as a man or woman, meaning pro must argue that the criteria of feminine psychology that makes one a woman is based on a global average something that he can not substantiate.  
  • Conclusively, under pro's own definition, he cannot tell who a man or a woman is. This is the debate here. If pro cannot tell who a man or a woman is the claim "trans women are women," is invalid.
Space
  • Pro makes a big mistake here. 
  • The universe is soundly grounded as everything. "It includes all of space and all the matter and energy that space contains." Space is simply a metaphysical property of the universe (see properties and relations).
  • Pro however defines woman as an ontological category definitionally. So he is making a categorical classification of objects that is not ontologically grounded. Definitions are logically circular (P is X and X is P). Pro's ontological claim is expressed in its description. The description is its ontology. 
  • This is simply a case of properties vs ontology itself. The universe is grounded as a distinct ontology. Pro's definition is not. 

Conclusion
  • The conclusion seems like an obvious decision to me. The resolution is that "trans women are women" is a valid claim.
    1. Has pro proven that trans women are women? No. 
    2. Has pro shown a psychological criterion that differentiates between men and women? No. 
    3. Has pro shown us what qualifies as feminine psychology? No
    4. Epistemology: invalid. Ontology: ungrounded and meaningless. 
  • As we established that the biological definition is valid, and established that pro's notions of other potential definitions are invalid the debate defaults to con.